Case Name: Keith SEWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. James RIDDLE, St. Dir. of Mental Health; Dir. John H. Magill, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-17
Citations: 453 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: No. 11-2059
Parties: Keith SEWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. James RIDDLE, St. Dir. of Mental Health; Dir. John H. Magill, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 386–386

Head Matter:
Keith SEWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. James RIDDLE, St. Dir. of Mental Health; Dir. John H. Magill, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-2059.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 17, 2011.
Keith Seward, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Seward seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing his complaint without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). "[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement." Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on June 2, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on September 26, 2011. Because Seward failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.