UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6747


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

LLOYD OBED ADAMS,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00195-TDS-1; 1:15-
cv-00761-TDS-JEP)


Submitted: October 18, 2018                                   Decided: October 23, 2018


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lloyd Obed Adams, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Lloyd Obed Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment adopting the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was

not timely filed.

       When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal

must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 March 21, 2018. The

notice of appeal was filed on June 18, 2018. * Because Adams 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, 

(1988).


                                             2