
    Ronnie DYSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian LIGGAN, Virginia Capital Realty Property Manager of 1514 Perry Street, Richmond, VA 23224; David Liggan, Virginia Capital Realty Property Manager of 1514 Perry Street, Richmond, VA 23224; Virginia Capital Realty, Fannie Mae (Owner); Fannie Mae Resource Center; Nationwide Reo Brokers Inc., Fannie Mae Assigned Real Estate or Property Manager; Eastern Seaboard Investments LLC, Lender Name: Document # 80304/800005876; Shapiro & Burson, LLP, Law Offices of Shapiro & Burson LLP; Jennifer Day, Paralegal, Shapiro & Burson LLP; Cynthia Jenkins, Title Claims, Shapiro & Burson LLP; Federal National Mortgage Association, Property Owner: 1514 Perry Street, Richmond, VA 23224; Real Property Management, Fannie Mae Assigned Property Manager; Ashley George, Real Property Management; Jeff P. Evans, Property Owner; 1514 Perry Street, Richmond, VA 23224; Roseline W. Evans, Property Owner: 1514 Perry Street, Richmond, VA 23224; Citimortgage, Inc., Property Owner: 1514 Perry Street, Richmond, VA 23224; United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, Complaint Division: Complaint No: 297669; Office of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity, Complaint Division: Complaint NO: 297669; Wittstadt Title & Escrow Company LLC, Titles & Deeds; Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions, Complaint Division: Filed 7/27/2010; Tara L. Ward, Legal Assistant, Shapiro & Burson LLP; Chrissy Dove, Legal Assistant, Shapiro & Burson LLP, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-1101.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 22, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 24, 2012.
    Ronnie Dyson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding . precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Dyson seeks to appeal the district court’s order sua sponte dismissing his several federal and state law claims against the Defendants. 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 sixty 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, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 2, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on January 19, 2012. Because Dyson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  