Case Name: Gifford BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-25
Citations: 585 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 14-6990
Parties: Gifford BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Gifford BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6990.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 25, 2014.
Gifford Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gifford Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss Brown's 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. 2860, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's judgment was entered on the docket on October 3, 2012. Brown filed his notice of appeal on June 10, 2014. Because Brown 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).