Case Name: Kevin PITTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-27
Citations: 538 F. App'x 344
Docket Number: No. 13-6563
Parties: Kevin PITTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 344–345

Head Matter:
Kevin PITTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6563.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 13, 2013.
Decided: Aug. 27, 2013.
Kevin Pitts, Appellant pro se. Brendan McDonald, Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Pitts seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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. RApp. 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 September 11, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on April 6, 2013.* Because Pitts failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.