Case Name: Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-17
Citations: 468 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 11-1672
Parties: Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 186–186

Head Matter:
Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant.
No. 11-1672.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 17, 2011.
Pepi Schafler, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Pepi Schafler seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing her civil action styled as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denying reconsideration. 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 May 11, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on June 13, 2011. Because Schafler 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.