
    Randolph BOWDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Stephen SIMS; Raymond Hendrix; Daniel Batt; Gracelia Ramos; Linda Richey; Robert Eason; Calvin Wheat; FNU Manning, Captain; FNU Rayford, Major; FNU Rodenbeck, Captain, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-40791
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 21, 2016.
    Randolph Bowden, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Randolph Bowden, Texas prisoner # 1827604, filed a notice of appeal in this civil action following the district court’s denial of his motion for injunctive relief and the judgment dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to obey an order. This court must examine the basis of its own jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

Bowden’s notice of appeal was not timely. It was not filed within 30 days of the district court’s order denying injunctive relief or the judgment dismissing the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R.Áp?. P. 4(a)(1). Even if Bowden’s post-judgment motion for time to file objections were considered a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) that served to suspend the start of the period for filing a notice of appeal, the district court’s order denying the motion was entered more than 30 days before the date of Bowden’s notice of appeal. In light of the untimeliness of Bowden’s notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should hot be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     