                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 13-2489


CHERYL F. COHENS,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES; BALTIMORE
CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:11-cv-03419-WDQ)


Submitted:   April 17, 2014                 Decided:   April 21, 2014


Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cheryl F. Cohens, Appellant Pro Se.       Elise Song Kurlander,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Cheryl F. Cohens seeks to appeal the district court’s

order finally disposing of all claims in her action alleging

employment discrimination.        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 July 30, 2013.       The notice of appeal was filed on December

11, 2013.       Because Cohens 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
