Case Name: William Thomas BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Duane TERRELL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-17
Citations: 648 F. App'x 365
Docket Number: No. 15-7819
Parties: William Thomas BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Duane TERRELL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 365–366

Head Matter:
William Thomas BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Duane TERRELL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7819.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2016.
Decided: May 17, 2016.
William Thomas Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before DUNCAN and HARRIS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Barnes seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on Barnes' 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 4s 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 September 10, 2015. Barnes' motion for a certificate of appealability, which we construe as a notice of appeal, was filed on November 1, 2015. Because Barnes failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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).