                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-7589


ROBBIE COLLINS,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ANTHONY PADULA,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (2:12-cv-00710-CMC)


Submitted:   May 29, 2014                        Decided:   June 4, 2014


Before KING and      DIAZ,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robbie Collins, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Robbie Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief 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 August 23, 2013.         The notice of appeal was filed on September

26, 2013.       See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 266 (1988).         Because Collins failed to file a timely notice

of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal

period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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

                                       2
