Case Name: Ueston LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon FERGUSON; Tony Hayward; BP, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-05
Citations: 632 F. App'x 129
Docket Number: No. 15-2057
Parties: Ueston LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon FERGUSON; Tony Hayward; BP, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 129–130

Head Matter:
Ueston LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon FERGUSON; Tony Hayward; BP, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-2057.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2016.
Decided: Feb. 5, 2016.
Ueston Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ueston Lewis seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his complaint as time-barred. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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 August 7, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on Wednesday, September 9, 2015. Because Lewis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED.