Case Name: Terick Mike JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. RODRIQUES, Emergency Medical Technician, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-31
Citations: 683 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 16-7469
Parties: Terick Mike JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. RODRIQUES, Emergency Medical Technician, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
Terick Mike JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. RODRIQUES, Emergency Medical Technician, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-7469
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 9, 2017
Decided: March 31, 2017
Terick Mike James, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terick Mike James seeks to appeal the district court's judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). 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 judgment was entered on the docket on September 2, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on October 17, 2016. Because James 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).