Case Name: Robert A. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-18
Citations: 669 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 16-6804
Parties: Robert A. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
Robert A. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6804
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 13, 2016
Decided: October 18, 2016
Robert A. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert A. Young seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 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 19, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on June 11, 2016. Because Young 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 purposes 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).