Case Name: Catherine D. RANDOLPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-05
Citations: 460 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 11-6917
Parties: Catherine D. RANDOLPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 460
Pages: 277–277

Head Matter:
Catherine D. RANDOLPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6917.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 22, 2011.
Decided: Jan. 5, 2012.
Catherine D. Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen A. Ellis, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before KING and KEENAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Catherine D. Randolph seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2011) petition. 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. RApp. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. RApp. 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 May 26, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on July 6, 2011. Because Randolph failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and deny Randolph's motion to expedite the appeal as moot. 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.