Case Name: Fred Henderson MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, and its agents and servants, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-05
Citations: 437 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 11-1225
Parties: Fred Henderson MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, and its agents and servants, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
Fred Henderson MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, and its agents and servants, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-1225.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2011.
Decided: July 5, 2011.
Fred Henderson Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Rae Fargnoli, Clawson & Staubes, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fred Henderson Moore seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and remanding his case to state court. 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 February 3, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on March 10, 2011. Because Moore 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.