USCA4 Appeal: 22-6681 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6681

DAVID LYDELL STEPHENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02207-BO)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lydell Stephens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6681 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

David Lydell Stephens seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without

prejudice his

petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 1 We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 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,

(2007).

The district court entered its order on March 3, 2021. Stephens filed the notice of

appeal on June 6, 2022. 2 Because Stephens 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

1 Although the district court dismissed Stephens’ petition without prejudice, we conclude that the order is final and appealable. See Britt v. DeJoy,

(4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order). 2 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on Stephens’ notice of appeal is the earliest date Stephens could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,

(1988).

2