                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6600


RAYSHAWN PEARSON, a/k/a Rayshawn Kalif Pearson,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN JOSEPH MCFADDEN,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:14-cv-03943-TMC)


Submitted: September 18, 2018                               Decided: September 21, 2018


Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rayshawn Kalif Pearson, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Rayshawn Pearson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting Respondent’s summary judgment

motion, and denying relief on Pearson’s 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 August 15, 2017. The

notice of appeal was filed on May 13, 2018. * Because Pearson 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
