Case Name: Roderick COAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-23
Citations: 460 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 11-7255
Parties: Roderick COAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 460
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
Roderick COAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-7255.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2011.
Roderick Coan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Coan seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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 June 17, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on September 14, 2011. Because Coan 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.
The envelope containing the notice of appeal was clearly date stamped to reflect its receipt in the prison mail room on this date. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).