                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-2344


ANTHONY LAMAR FISHBURNE,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

SARAH L. HAMILTON, SC DSS Child Support Specialist,

                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:14-cv-03572-TMC)


Submitted:   February 12, 2015            Decided:   February 18, 2015


Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Lamar Fishburne, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Anthony Lamar Fishburne seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order   adopting   the   recommendation   of   the   magistrate

judge and dismissing his civil complaint against a caseworker at

the South Carolina Department of Social Services.               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 6, 2014, and the appeal period expired on December

8, 2014.     The notice of appeal was filed on December 9, 2014,

one day late.      Because Fishburne 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

                                     2
