                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6407


HOBERT GREGORY REDMON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

CARLTON   JOYNER,      Administrator,      Harnett   Correctional
institution,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-cv-00086-FDW)


Submitted:   June 26, 2014                    Decided:   June 30, 2014


Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Hobert Gregory Redmon, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Hobert   Gregory   Redmon     seeks    to   appeal   the   district

court’s order granting summary judgment for Respondent on his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.           We dismiss the appeal for lack

of   jurisdiction   because   the   notice   of    appeal   was   not   timely

filed.

           Parties are accorded thirty 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 order was entered on the docket

on November 1, 2013.      The notice of appeal was filed on March

10, 2014. *     Because Redmon failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal

period, we dismiss the appeal.            We deny Redmon’s motion for

release and damages.     We dispense with oral argument because the


      *
       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
facts   and   legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented     in   the

materials     before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                     DISMISSED




                                       3
