                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-6082


WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS AND COUNSEL,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00007-JPB-RWT)


Submitted: May 23, 2019                                           Decided: May 29, 2019


Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       William Scott Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil

action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was

not timely filed.

       When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal

must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 February 2, 2017. The

notice of appeal was filed on December 19, 2018. * Because Davis 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




       *
        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
