Case Name: Willie ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-27
Citations: 380 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 10-6161
Parties: Willie ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Willie ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6161.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 20, 2010.
Decided: May 27, 2010.
Willie Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Anderson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss Anderson's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely under the AEDPA. 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 April 18, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on January 20, 2010. Because Anderson 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 the 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).