
    Thurman VAN LILLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fred THOMPSON, Associate Warden; Morris Elmore, Lieutenant EHSO; James Blackwell, DHO; McKither Bodison, Associate Warden; D. Nunnally, Captain SMU; Eugene Skipper, Contraband; S. Jenkins; L. Randall, Grievances; D. McCommons, Contraband; Doris Gantt, Property Control, Defendants-Appellees. Thurman Van Lilly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon Ozmint; Stan Burtt; Adrian Martell; R. Reeves; Robert Ward; Fred B. Thompson; Thierry D. Nettles; Tim B. Roof;. Gilbert Emrhein; Mr. Williams; Mr. Powell; Yvette Blowe, Defendants-Appellees, and John Ward; C. Reeves Defendants.
    Nos. 09-6723, 09-6775.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 26, 2009.
    Decided: Sept. 3, 2009.
    
      Thurman Van Lilly, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, Davidson & Linde-mann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thurman Van Lilly seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaints for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were not timely filed.

The time limits for noting an appeal in a civil case are set forth in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which effectuates 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (2006). See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). 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). A failure to file a notice of appeal in accordance with § 2107 deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360.

The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on March 10, 2009. The notices of appeal were filed on April 14, 2009, the date they were received in the prison mail room. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Lilly failed to file timely notices of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeals. 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.  