Case Name: Walter Columbus SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SURRY COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-22
Citations: 546 F. App'x 323
Docket Number: No. 13-7433
Parties: Walter Columbus SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SURRY COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 546
Pages: 323–323

Head Matter:
Walter Columbus SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SURRY COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-7433.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2013.
Decided: Nov. 22, 2013.
Walter Columbus Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and FLOYD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Walter Columbus Simmons seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 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 July 17, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on September 4, 2013. Because Simmons 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.