USCA4 Appeal: 23-6279 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6279

DAVID L. ROWLAND, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-hc-02210-M)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 27, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David L. Rowland, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6279 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: David L. Rowland, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 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, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on January 30, 2023. Rowland filed the notice of appeal on March 7, 2023, which was after the 30-day appeal period expired. * Because Rowland 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

* We assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Rowland could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the district court.

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).