UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7724
JAMES A. HENSON, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CO/2 LAMBERT; CO/2 N. SOLTAS; CO/2 S. J. MILLER; CO/2 R.
BENNETT; CO/2 C. ORTI; CO/2 J. TART; CO S. MURRAY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:12-cv-03271-RWT)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Henson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James A. Henson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). 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 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on August 2, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on
October 10, 2013. * Because Henson 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
*
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,
276 (1988).
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3