Case Name: Jeffrey ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DAILEY; Dan Berry, CEO Duke University Federal Credit Union; Alex Holmes, Money Gram CEO, Defendants-Appellees, and Chief Cerelyn Davis, Durham Police Department, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-06
Citations: 713 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: No. 17-1971
Parties: Jeffrey ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DAILEY; Dan Berry, CEO Duke University Federal Credit Union; Alex Holmes, Money Gram CEO, Defendants-Appellees, and Chief Cerelyn Davis, Durham Police Department, Defendant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Jeffrey ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DAILEY; Dan Berry, CEO Duke University Federal Credit Union; Alex Holmes, Money Gram CEO, Defendants-Appellees, and Chief Cerelyn Davis, Durham Police Department, Defendant.
No. 17-1971
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 28, 2018
Decided: March 6, 2018
Jeffrey Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Marie Barber-Jones, Dan M. Hart-zog, Jr., Dan McCord Hartzog, CRAN-FILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Caren D. Enloe, SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Ashley Burgess Bartolue-ci, Erin McNeil Young, HALL BOOTH SMITH, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Alen appeals from the district court's July 25, 2017, order dismissing the claims against three of four defendants in his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen v. Dailey, No. 1:17-cv-00259-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C. July 25, 2017). 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.
AFFIRMED
. Although Allen's notice of appeal was filed prior to the entry of final judgment, we have jurisdiction over Allen's appeal from the July 25 order under the doctrine of cumulative finality. Equip. Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992).
. Allen filed his notice of appeal before the district court entered its final order on September 22, 2017, dismissing the claims against the remaining defendant. Although, in some circumstances, an informal brief filed in this court may be sufficient to give the requisite notice of intent to appeal, see Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992), Allen's informal brief was not filed until November 15, 2017, after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), Moreover, Allen did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6). Because "the 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), we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's final order.