Case Name: Adrian CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Linda S. Raynor, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-17
Citations: 205 F. App'x 999
Docket Number: No. 06-1844
Parties: Adrian CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Linda S. Raynor, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 999–1000

Head Matter:
Adrian CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Linda S. Raynor, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-1844.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 17, 2006.
Adrian Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Carter seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing Carter's motion "to remove Cheryl Dickensheets from DSS and have DSS pay her misdeeds". We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic tion 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 June 20, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on July 21, 2006. Because Carter 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.