                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6260


ROGER EARL COLEY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

FRANK PERRY,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01422-TDS-JLW)


Submitted: May 25, 2017                                           Decided: May 31, 2017


Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Roger Earl Coley seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his action as

a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it without prejudice. 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 January 18, 2017. Coley’s

notice of appeal was deposited in the prison’s internal mailing system at the earliest on

February 22, 2017. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108

S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Coley 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
