UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-2332


WILLIE ZIMMERMAN,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

BANK OF AMERICA,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-02452-JFA)


Submitted: March 13, 2018                                         Decided: March 15, 2018


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Willie Zimmerman, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, MCGUIREWOODS,
LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Willie Zimmerman seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, denying his motion to amend his

complaint for a second time, granting Bank of America’s motion to dismiss, and

dismissing his complaint. 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 October 17, 2017. The

notice of appeal was filed on November 17, 2017. Because Zimmerman 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