Case Name: Frank GREEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 16-6853
Parties: Frank GREEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 154–154

Head Matter:
Frank GREEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6853
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 29, 2016
Decided: October 4, 2016
Frank Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M. Scrantom, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Green, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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 March 28, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on June 13, 2016. Because Green 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 this 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 delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).