Case Name: Jonathan HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jeramie Barideaux, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE; Rodney Monroe, Chief; John C. Gorrod, Sergeant; Michael R. Bodenstein, Officer; Michael C. Wallin, Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-21
Citations: 706 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 17-2053
Parties: Jonathan HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jeramie Barideaux, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE; Rodney Monroe, Chief; John C. Gorrod, Sergeant; Michael R. Bodenstein, Officer; Michael C. Wallin, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 812–813

Head Matter:
Jonathan HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jeramie Barideaux, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE; Rodney Monroe, Chief; John C. Gorrod, Sergeant; Michael R. Bodenstein, Officer; Michael C. Wallin, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-2053
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 19, 2017
Decided: December 21, 2017
Jonathan Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Edward Peterson, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina; Ronald L. Gibson, RUFF BOND COBB WADE & BETHUNE, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jason Robert Benton, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Lori R. Keeton, LAW OFFICES OF LORI KEETON, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Harris seeks to appeal the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claims and related state law claims. 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 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 August 8, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on September 8, 2017. Because Harris 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