Case Name: Charles F. WHIMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Sec. of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-26
Citations: 491 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 12-1772
Parties: Charles F. WHIMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Sec. of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 389–390

Head Matter:
Charles F. WHIMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray MABUS, Sec. of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-1772.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2012.
Charles F. Whims, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles F. Whims, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 April 12, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on June 15, 2012. Because Whims 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.