Case Name: Andres Leroy GLENN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathy VANDROSS; Alan Vandross, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-20
Citations: 475 F. App'x 469
Docket Number: No. 12-1833
Parties: Andres Leroy GLENN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kathy VANDROSS; Alan Vandross, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 469–469

Head Matter:
Andres Leroy GLENN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kathy VANDROSS; Alan Vandross, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 12-1833.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 16, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 20, 2012.
Andres Leroy Glenn, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and THACKER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Andres Leroy Glenn seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Glenn's civil action. 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 16, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on July 3, 2012. Because Glenn 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.