Case Name: Robert Lewis JORDAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael B. HARDIN, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-20
Citations: 600 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 14-7838
Parties: Robert Lewis JORDAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael B. HARDIN, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 108–108

Head Matter:
Robert Lewis JORDAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael B. HARDIN, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 14-7838.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2015.
Decided: April 20, 2015.
Robert Lewis Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE and KEENAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Lewis Jordan seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely 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 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 March 18, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on December 10, 2014. Because Jordan 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.
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).