                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6111


MARK ANTHONY OWENS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Broad River Correctional Institution,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:11-cv-02397-RMG)


Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 3, 2018


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mark Anthony Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General,
Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Mark Anthony Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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 30 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 September 5, 2012. The

notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on January 22, 2018. * Because Owens 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




       *
        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
