Case Name: Tashon SAMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-11
Citations: 633 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 15-7426
Parties: Tashon SAMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 131–131

Head Matter:
Tashon SAMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 21, 2016.
Decided: Feb. 11, 2016.
Tashon Sampson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenk'a, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.'
Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tashon Sampson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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 July 23, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on S.eptember 2, 2015. Because Sampson 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.