Case Name: Sylvester E. HARDING, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sandra THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee, and Unnamed Respondent, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-26
Citations: 582 F. App'x 221
Docket Number: No. 14-6858
Parties: Sylvester E. HARDING, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sandra THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee, and Unnamed Respondent, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 221–221

Head Matter:
Sylvester E. HARDING, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sandra THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee, and Unnamed Respondent, Respondent.
No. 14-6858.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2014.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2014.
Sylvester E. Harding, III, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester E. Harding, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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 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. 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. 2860,168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on March 20, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on May 30, 2014. Because Harding 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).