Roderick Demeatrice OAKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK, Director, Respondent-Appellee, 589 F. App'x 228

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roderick Demeatrice Oaks seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as time-barred. 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, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2860, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 4, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 2014. Because Oaks 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. Because Oaks incorrectly mailed the notice of appeal to a state court, which is under no obligation to forward the notice to the proper district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012), Oaks does not benefit from the prison mailbox rule.