Case Name: Peter L. THOMAS, a/k/a Peter Lloyd Thomas, a/k/a Patrick R. Harrison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHLAND COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER; James Hunter May; J. Clarke Newton, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-21
Citations: 451 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 11-6769
Parties: Peter L. THOMAS, a/k/a Peter Lloyd Thomas, a/k/a Patrick R. Harrison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHLAND COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER; James Hunter May; J. Clarke Newton, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Peter L. THOMAS, a/k/a Peter Lloyd Thomas, a/k/a Patrick R. Harrison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHLAND COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER; James Hunter May; J. Clarke Newton, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6769.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2011.
Peter L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Peter L. Thomas appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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 April 29, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on June 10, 2011. Because Thomas 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.