Case Name: Robert C. SHROUT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-22
Citations: 604 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 15-6383
Parties: Robert C. SHROUT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
Robert C. SHROUT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Evelyn SEIFERT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6383.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2015.
Decided: May 22, 2015.
Robert C. Shrout, Appellant pro se. Scott E. Johnson, Office of the Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert C. Shrout 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 (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 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 judgment was entered on the docket on August 7, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on March 9, 2015. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1). Because Shrout 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.