Case Name: Malcom Maxwell RYIDU-X, a/k/a Richard Janey, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Wayne A. WEBB; MD Correctional Institution-Hagerstown; The Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-26
Citations: 647 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 15-7935
Parties: Malcom Maxwell RYIDU-X, a/k/a Richard Janey, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Wayne A. WEBB; MD Correctional Institution-Hagerstown; The Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 647
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
Malcom Maxwell RYIDU-X, a/k/a Richard Janey, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Wayne A. WEBB; MD Correctional Institution-Hagerstown; The Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15-7935.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2016.
Decided: April 26, 2016.
Malcom Maxwell Ryidu-X, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Malcom Maxwell Ryidu-X seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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 February 24, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on December 1, 2015. Because Ryidu-X 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.