Appellants Brigid Hand and Joseph Visconti, through counsel, appeal, in part, the district court’s March 2011 order, granting in part and denying in part their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Sheila Allen’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1981 complaint. Specifically, they appeal the district court’s decision to the extent that it determined that Hand and Visconti were not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss phase of the proceedings below. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

In a civil case in which the United States is not a party, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2107 require an appellant to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the judgment or order being appealed. In Bowles v. Russell, the United States Supreme Court held “that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Therefore, this Court is “obliged to examine the question sua sponte.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Carpenter, 411 F.3d 323, 328 (2d Cir. 2005).

Here, the district court entered its order on Monday, March 21, 2011. Hand and Visconti filed their notice of appeal on Thursday, April 21, 2011. However, Hand and Visconti had only until Wednesday, April 20, 2011 to timely file a notice of appeal. Thus, because Hand’s and Visconti’s notice of appeal was filed 31 days after the district court entered its order denying in part their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, their appeal was untimely filed by one day, and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.