Case Name: Brian M. BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC.; James Urban, Defendants-Appellees; Brian M. Bishop, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Urban; 7-Eleven Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-07
Citations: 464 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: Nos. 11-2127, 11-2129
Parties: Brian M. BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC.; James Urban, Defendants-Appellees. Brian M. Bishop, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Urban; 7-Eleven Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 162–162

Head Matter:
Brian M. BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC.; James Urban, Defendants-Appellees. Brian M. Bishop, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Urban; 7-Eleven Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 11-2127, 11-2129.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 10, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 7, 2012.
Brian M. Bishop, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Anthony Welter, Welter Law Firm, PC, Herndon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Brian M. Bishop seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his complaint and the district court's order to show cause. We dismiss the appeals for a lack of jurisdiction.
In Appeal No. 11-2127, we dismiss 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. RApp. 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 August 9, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on October 14, 2011. Because Bishop failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
In Appeal No. 11-2129, we again dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Bishop seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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.