IN RE: Wellesley K. CLAYTON, Appellant, Wellesley K. Clayton, Debtor-Appellant, v. Linda W. Simpson, U.S. Bankruptcy Administrator, Trustee-Appellee, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Party-in-Interest-Appellee, and M&T Bank, Creditor-Appellee

IN RE: Wellesley K. CLAYTON, Appellant, Wellesley K. Clayton, Debtor-Appellant, v. Linda W. Simpson, U.S. Bankruptcy Administrator, Trustee-Appellee, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Party-in-Interest-Appellee, and M&T Bank, Creditor-Appellee, No. 16-1693 United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Wellesley K. Clayton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Cox, Jr. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Lacey Meredith Moore, HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Charlotte, North Carolina; Linda Wright Simpson, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees, Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:] Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wellesley K. Clayton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order converting his case from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 proceeding. 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 was entered on the docket on November 23, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on June 15,2016. Because Clayton failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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