
    William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF CARY NORTH CAROLINA; Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor; State of North Carolina; Wake County Public School System; Mrs. Patti Head; North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services, Wake County Human Services; Albert Singer, Wake County North Carolina County Attorney; Triangle Family Services; Miles Wright, Interim CEO, Defendants-Appellees. Wake County NC Human Services, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Scott Davis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. William Scott Davis, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott L. Wilkinson, Defendant-Appellee. State of North Carolina, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Scott Davis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Wake County Human Services, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Scott Davis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-2019, No. 16-2020, No. 16-2021, No. 16-2022, No. 16-2023
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 25, 2017
    Decided: May 30, 2017
    
      ■ William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter the judgments in three closed civil cases (Nos. 16-2019, 16-2021, and 16-2023). Davis also seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment remanding a family matter to state court (No. 16-2020) and its order denying his motion to set aside the judgment in a separate civil matter (No. 16-2022).

. 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, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s judgment in No. 16-2020 was entered on the docket on March 27, 2014. The district court’s order underlying No. 16-2022 was entered on the docket on May 27, 2016. Both these appeals arise from a single notice of appeal that Davis filed on August 31, 2016. Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss Nos. 16-2020 and 16-2022 for lack of jurisdiction.

Turning to Davis’ three remaining appeals, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Nos. 16-2019, 16-2021, and 16-2023 for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Town of Cary, No. 5:08-cv-00176-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2016). We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, including his motions to appoint counsel, to remand, and to appoint a guardian ad litem. 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.

NOS. 16-2020, 16-2022 DISMISSED; NOS. 16-2019, 16-2021, 16-2023 AFFIRMED 
      
       Because the notice of appeal is undated, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing 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, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     