
    Edith J. BEAUCHAMP; KCB, minor child of Edith J. Beauchamp; AJB, minor child of Edith J. Beauchamp; Virginia Walcott Beauchamp, mother of Edith J. Beauchamp, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of MARYLAND; Prince George’s County Department of Social Services; City of Greenbelt; Samir Malhotra, Secretary of Human Resources; Van T. Mitchell, Secretary of Health & Mental Hygiene; Michael McLaughlin, City Manager, City of Greenbelt; Shireen Blair, Crisis Counselor, Greenbelt CARES, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-1283
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 13, 2016
    Decided: September 16, 2016
    Edith J. Beauchamp, KCB, AJB, Virginia Walcott Beauchamp, Appellants Pro Se. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Hil-ma Joy Munson, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Kevin Bock Karpinski, Sandra Diana Lee, KARPIN-SKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edith J. Beauchamp seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing her civil rights action and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

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 order denying Beau-champ’s Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on November 23, 2015. Beau-champ subsequently filed her notice of appeal on December 31, 2015. Because Beau-champ failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and the district court denied Beau-champ’s motion to extend 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED  