Case Name: Vincent McKinley BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; Warden Harris L. Diggs, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-24
Citations: 408 F. App'x 773
Docket Number: No. 10-7210
Parties: Vincent McKinley BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; Warden Harris L. Diggs, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
Vincent McKinley BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; Warden Harris L. Diggs, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-7210.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 23, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 24, 2011.
Vincent McKinley Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vincent McKinley Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice 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. 2860, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on February 12, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on August 2, 2010. Because Brown 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.
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).