UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7546


MICHAEL ANTHONY PAIGE,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

KATIE POOLE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00618-CCE-JEP)


Submitted: January 30, 2018                                       Decided: February 2, 2018


Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Anthony Paige, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Nicholaos George
Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Michael Anthony Paige seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on 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, 

, 214 (2007).

       The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 10, 2017. The notice of

appeal was filed on November 14, 2017. * Because Paige 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, 

(1988).

                                              2