Case Name: Cush Ajeya WRIGHT-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HONORABLE JUDGE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-20
Citations: 459 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 11-7093
Parties: Cush Ajeya WRIGHT-EL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. HONORABLE JUDGE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Cush Ajeya WRIGHT-EL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. HONORABLE JUDGE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-7093.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2011.
Cush Ajeya Wright-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cush Ajeya Wright-El seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. 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 7, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on August 16, 2011. Because Wright-El 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.
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).