Case Name: Jerome Julius BROWN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Roberto Hylton, Chief of Police; Corporal C. Wood, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 416 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 10-7771
Parties: Jerome Julius BROWN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Roberto Hylton, Chief of Police; Corporal C. Wood, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 416
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
Jerome Julius BROWN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Roberto Hylton, Chief of Police; Corporal C. Wood, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-7771.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 4, 2011.
Decided: March 10, 2011.
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint. 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 ease 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 25, 2010, 2010 WL 4182940. The notice of appeal was filed on November 30, 2010. Because Brown 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 deposited in the institution's internal mail systern 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).