USCA4 Appeal: 24-6576 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/20/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6576

DIONDRE KE-SEAN JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER APPENHEIMER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-ct-03322-D)

Submitted: September 16, 2024 Decided: September 20, 2024

Before GREGORY, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Diondre Ke-Sean Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6576 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/20/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Diondre Ke-Sean Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing

without prejudice his

action for failure to prosecute. 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 judgment on September 11, 2023, and the appeal period

expired on October 11, 2023. Jones filed the notice of appeal on May 30, 2024. * Because

Jones 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

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Jones 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