
    Jerry CASTILLO, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. David MUNOZ, Police Officer, Badge # 1440—San Antonio Police Department; Nick Undercover Officer, Detective—San Antonio Police Department—Last Name Unknown; San Antonio Police Department, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 15-50878
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 17, 2017
    Jerry Castillo, Jr., Pro Se
    Nathan Mark Ralls, Hoblit Darling Ralls Hernandez & Hudlow, L.L.P., San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees David Munoz, Nick Undercover Officer
    Mark Kosanovich, Fitzpatrick & Kosa-novich, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee San Antonio Police Department
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jerry Castillo, Jr., Texas prisoner # 2074055, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He has also filed motions for the appointment of counsel and production of certain documents.

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil ease. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Castillo had 30 days, or until April 8,2015, to file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). He did not file a notice of appeal until well after this appeal period expired. The untimely notice of appeal could not be construed as a motion for an extension of time. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Henry v. Estelle, 688 F.2d 407, 407 (5th Cir. 1982). Castillo’s subsequent motion for leave to proceed IFP and the denial thereof do not affect the untimeliness of this appeal. See Briggs v. Lucas, 678 F.2d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1982).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Castillo’s motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     