Case Name: Benjamin F. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-15
Citations: 485 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 12-6920
Parties: Benjamin F. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
Benjamin F. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-6920.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 11, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 15, 2012.
Benjamin F. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin F. Coleman seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. 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 initial order was entered on the docket on January 18, 2012, and the order denying Coleman's motion for reconsideration was entered on February 10, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on May 21, 2012. Because Coleman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Coleman's motion for a cer- tifieate of appealability, and we also deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.