Case Name: Gene Raymond MORRILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debra D. CORCORAN, Attorney at Law; James 'Mike' Sitton, II, Attorney at Law, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-18
Citations: 529 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 13-6654
Parties: Gene Raymond MORRILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debra D. CORCORAN, Attorney at Law; James ‘Mike’ Sitton, II, Attorney at Law, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
Gene Raymond MORRILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debra D. CORCORAN, Attorney at Law; James ‘Mike’ Sitton, II, Attorney at Law, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-6654.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2013.
Decided: June 18, 2013.
Gene Raymond Morrill, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gene Raymond Morrill seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure to state a claim. In civil cases like Morrill's, parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The order that Morrill seeks to appeal was entered on January 25, 2013. Morrill thus had thirty days, or until Monday, February 25, 2013, to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(1)(C). Nevertheless, Morrill did not file a notice of appeal until, at earliest, April 8, 2013 — more than one month too late.
Because "the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement," we lack jurisdiction to consider Morrill's claims. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Accordingly, we deny Morrill's motion to appoint counsel and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Although Morrill suggests that he mailed a notice of appeal on or around January 31 and received a confirmation of receipt on February 12, the docket of neither the district court nor of this court reflects any such filing. See Wheeling Hosp., Inc. v. Health Plan of the Upper Ohio Valley, Inc., 683 F.3d 577, 583-84 (4th Cir.2012) (party claiming appellate jurisdiction bears the burden of proving it); Porc-hia v. Norris, 251 F.3d 1196, 1198 (8th Cir.2001) ("[A]n appellant must prove that necessary preconditions to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction-including the timely filing of a notice of appeal-have been fulfilled."). Left with no alternative, we construe Morrill's letter to this court, which was mailed on April 8, as his notice of appeal.