UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7765
FRANK E. GREEN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J. PRITTS, CO II; J. GORDON, CO III; R. RITCHIE, CO II;
CHRIST WEDLOCK, CO III,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00868-JFM)
Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Edward Green, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-
Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Edward Green seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying
his motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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 final order was entered on the docket
on September 24, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on
October 28, 2015. * Because Green 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
(1988).
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3