Case Name: Kaimel GLENN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer FRAZENBAKER, CO II; Officer Davie, CO II; Officer McVay, CO II, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-01
Citations: 433 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 11-6269
Parties: Kaimel GLENN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer FRAZENBAKER, CO II; Officer Davie, CO II; Officer McVay, CO II, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 151–151

Head Matter:
Kaimel GLENN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer FRAZENBAKER, CO II; Officer Davie, CO II; Officer McVay, CO II, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6269.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2011.
Decided: June 1, 2011.
Kaimel Glenn, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kaimel Glenn seeks to appeal the district court's order administratively closing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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 October 14, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on or about January 27, 2011. Because Glenn 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.
We have given Glenn the benefit of prison mailroom rule. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).