Case Name: Vincent Lamont MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Helen FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia Parole Board; David Harker, Vice-Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; Carole Sievers; Herbert Coulton; Michael Hawes, Members of the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-16
Citations: 103 F. App'x 722
Docket Number: No. 04-6233
Parties: Vincent Lamont MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Helen FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia Parole Board; David Harker, Vice-Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; Carole Sievers; Herbert Coulton; Michael Hawes, Members of the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 722–723

Head Matter:
Vincent Lamont MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Helen FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia Parole Board; David Harker, Vice-Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board; Carole Sievers; Herbert Coulton; Michael Hawes, Members of the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-6233.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2004.
Decided July 16, 2004.
Brent A. Jackson, Hill, Tucker, Marsh & Jackson, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, Richard C. Vorhis, Assistant Attorney General, William W. Muse, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Vincent L. Martin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 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 magistrate judge's order was entered on the docket on December 19, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on January 28, 2004. Because Martin 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
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).