Case Name: Anthony Lamar WRIGHT, a/k/a Anthony L. Wright, formerly #250258, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. DARBY, in his individual capacity; Dr. Randolph, in her individual capacity; Dr. Grant, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Strickland, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Koon, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Leon Lott, in his individual capacity; Correct Care Solutions; Southern Health Partners; Sergeant Holley; Dr. Chaves, in his individual capacity; Charleston County Detention Center; Sheriff Al Cannon; Nurse Herndon, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-21
Citations: 697 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 17-6764
Parties: Anthony Lamar WRIGHT, a/k/a Anthony L. Wright, formerly #250258, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. DARBY, in his individual capacity; Dr. Randolph, in her individual capacity; Dr. Grant, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Strickland, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Koon, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Leon Lott, in his individual capacity; Correct Care Solutions; Southern Health Partners; Sergeant Holley; Dr. Chaves, in his individual capacity; Charleston County Detention Center; Sheriff Al Cannon; Nurse Herndon, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
Anthony Lamar WRIGHT, a/k/a Anthony L. Wright, formerly #250258, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. DARBY, in his individual capacity; Dr. Randolph, in her individual capacity; Dr. Grant, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Strickland, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Koon, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Leon Lott, in his individual capacity; Correct Care Solutions; Southern Health Partners; Sergeant Holley; Dr. Chaves, in his individual capacity; Charleston County Detention Center; Sheriff Al Cannon; Nurse Herndon, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6764
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 14, 2017
Decided: September 21, 2017
Anthony Lamar Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Victor Gende, John Earle Tyler, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Otto Edworth Liipfert, III, GRIFFITH, FREEMAN & LIIPFERT, LLC, Beaufort, South Carolina; Michael Stephen Pauley, PAULEY LAW FIRM, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina; Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; James Grant Long, III, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Charles Albert Kinney, Jr., Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lamar Wright seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's reports and recommendations and dismissing Wright's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action as against all Defendants. 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 January 20, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on June 14,2017. Because Wright failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Wright's motions for appointment of counsel and for summary judgment against Defendant Dr. Grant. 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