UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6100


JAMIN MAZYCK,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(3:10-cv-00389-HFF)


Submitted:   May 19, 2011                         Decided:   May 24, 2011


Before TRAXLER,    Chief    Judge,   and   AGEE   and   KEENAN,   Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jamin Mazyck, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant  Attorney  General, Donald John  Zelenka,  Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jamin      Mazyck   seeks   to   appeal   the   district    court’s

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.                   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, 

, 214 (2007).

            The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on    December   14,    2010.     The   notice   of   appeal   was     filed   on

January 18, 2010. *        Mazyck filed a motion for an extension of

time, but withdrew the motion before the district court ruled on

it.    Because Mazyck 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

       *
        For the purpose of this appeal, we assume the date
Mazyck’s signature on the notice of appeal was notarized is the
earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison
officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. 4(c); Houston
v. Lack, 

(1988).



                                        2
facts   and   legal    contentions   are   adequately   presented     in   the

materials     before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                      3