Case Name: Ben Howard SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph K. COFFY, Defendant-Appellee, and Bob Atkinson; Percy B. Harvin; L. Keith Josey, Jr.; Ronnie Stewart, all in their individual and official capacity; Linda G. Walters, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-17
Citations: 453 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 11-1773
Parties: Ben Howard SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph K. COFFY, Defendant-Appellee, and Bob Atkinson; Percy B. Harvin; L. Keith Josey, Jr.; Ronnie Stewart, all in their individual and official capacity; Linda G. Walters, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
Ben Howard SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph K. COFFY, Defendant-Appellee, and Bob Atkinson; Percy B. Harvin; L. Keith Josey, Jr.; Ronnie Stewart, all in their individual and official capacity; Linda G. Walters, Defendants.
No. 11-1773.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 17, 2011.
Ben Howard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Shaun C. Kent, Coffey Chandler Kent & McKenzie, PA, Manning, South Carolina, for Appellee.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ben Howard Smith appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint alleging fraud, and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985 (2006), and due process. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In a civil case, 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 13, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on July 19, 2011. Because Smith 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.