Case Name: Roosevelt MACKEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael J. LAMM, Respondent-Appellee, and Theodis Beck, Secretary of the North Carolina Dept. of Correction; Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-25
Citations: 471 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 12-6075
Parties: Roosevelt MACKEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael J. LAMM, Respondent-Appellee, and Theodis Beck, Secretary of the North Carolina Dept. of Correction; Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Roosevelt MACKEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael J. LAMM, Respondent-Appellee, and Theodis Beck, Secretary of the North Carolina Dept. of Correction; Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Respondents.
No. 12-6075.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2012.
Decided: April 25, 2012.
Roosevelt Mackey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Mackey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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 January 6, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on January 4, 2012. Because Mackey 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).