Case Name: Marion BEASLEY, Jr., a/k/a Marion Beasley El, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-20
Citations: 712 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 17-7637
Parties: Marion BEASLEY, Jr., a/k/a Marion Beasley El, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 712
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Marion BEASLEY, Jr., a/k/a Marion Beasley El, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-7637
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 15, 2018
Decided: February 20, 2018
Marion Beasley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marion Beasley, Jr., 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 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 August 29, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on December 13,. 2017. Because Beasley 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).