Case Name: Elridge V. HILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon PATTERSON, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Robert Eudy, Correctional Officer at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Sergeant Robertson; Lieutenant Smith; Derwin Neisman, Major; Jon Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Robert E. Ward, Director of Operations; David M. Tatarsky, General Counsel; Kelli G. Maddox, Office of General Counsel; Mary D. Anderson, Office of General Counsel and Director of Internal Affairs; Buck Armstrong, Counsel Substitute, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 224 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 06-8045
Parties: Elridge V. HILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon PATTERSON, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Robert Eudy, Correctional Officer at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Sergeant Robert son; Lieutenant Smith; Derwin Neisman, Major; Jon Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Robert E. Ward, Director of Operations; David M. Tatarsky, General Counsel; Kelli G. Maddox, Office of General Counsel; Mary D. Anderson, Office of General Counsel and Director of Internal Affairs; Buck Armstrong, Counsel Substitute, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
Elridge V. HILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon PATTERSON, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Robert Eudy, Correctional Officer at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Sergeant Robert son; Lieutenant Smith; Derwin Neisman, Major; Jon Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Robert E. Ward, Director of Operations; David M. Tatarsky, General Counsel; Kelli G. Maddox, Office of General Counsel; Mary D. Anderson, Office of General Counsel and Director of Internal Affairs; Buck Armstrong, Counsel Substitute, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-8045.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2007.
Decided: April 24, 2007.
Eldridge V. Hills, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elridge V. Hills seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claim for failure to comply with a magistrate judge's order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on October 23, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on November 27, 2006.* Because Hills failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 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.
Hills acknowledges that he gave his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing to the court on this date. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).