Case Name: Dwight SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; Mike Blumberg; Betty Johnson; T. Laviano, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-29
Citations: 569 F. App'x 179
Docket Number: No. 13-8055
Parties: Dwight SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; Mike Blumberg; Betty Johnson; T. Laviano, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 179–180

Head Matter:
Dwight SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; Mike Blumberg; Betty Johnson; T. Laviano, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-8055.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2014.
Decided: April 29, 2014.
Dwight M. Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwight Sutton seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 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 October 31, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on December 24, 2013. Because Sutton 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.