Case Name: Jason Robert DREW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-30
Citations: 584 F. App'x 92
Docket Number: No. 14-7083
Parties: Jason Robert DREW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 92–93

Head Matter:
Jason Robert DREW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7083.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 25, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2014.
Jason Robert Drew, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Robert Drew seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely 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. 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 June 10, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on July 17, 2014. Because Drew 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).