Case Name: Rodney McDonald WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-20
Citations: 620 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 15-7058
Parties: Rodney McDonald WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
Rodney McDonald WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7058.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 15, 20Í5.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2015.
Rodney McDonald Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney McDonald Williams seeks to appeal the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his complaint. 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 judgment was entered on the docket on May 4, 2015. The notice of appeal was • filed on June 30, 2015. Because Williams 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. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).