Case Name: Robert John SCHIEBLE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neville LORICK, President, SCE & G; Jenkins, Manager, Summerville Office, SCE & G; H. Richard Rosebroch, County Council Chairman for Dorchester County; James Jackson; Randy Green, Defendants-Appellees, and SCE&G, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-04
Citations: 86 F. App'x 596
Docket Number: No. 03-2193
Parties: Robert John SCHIEBLE, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Neville LORICK, President, SCE & G; Jenkins, Manager, Summerville Office, SCE & G; H. Richard Rosebroch, County Council Chairman for Dorchester County; James Jackson; Randy Green, Defendants—Appellees, and SCE&G, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 596–597

Head Matter:
Robert John SCHIEBLE, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Neville LORICK, President, SCE & G; Jenkins, Manager, Summerville Office, SCE & G; H. Richard Rosebroch, County Council Chairman for Dorchester County; James Jackson; Randy Green, Defendants—Appellees, and SCE&G, Defendant.
No. 03-2193.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 29, 2004.
Decided Feb. 4, 2004.
Robert John Schieble, Jr., Appellant pro se. John A. Massalon, Wills & Massalon, Charleston, South Carolina; M. Dawes Cooke, Peter G. Nistad, Barnwell, Whaley, Patterson & Helms, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Robert John Schieble, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2000) complaint without prejudice. 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. Director, 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 August 19, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on September 19, 2003. Because Schieble 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