UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7663


OTIS T. MADISON,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00422-HEH-RCY)


Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 3, 2018


Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Otis T. Madison, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Otis T. Madison seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 May 6, 2016. The notice of

appeal was filed on December 17, 2017. * Because Madison 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