Case Name: Ronald KLINK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sampy HARDIN, Jr.; Kathy Lee Hardin, Personal Representatives for the Estate of Sampy Hardin, Sr., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-25
Citations: 21 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 01-1778
Parties: Ronald KLINK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sampy HARDIN, Jr.; Kathy Lee Hardin, Personal Representatives for the Estate of Sampy Hardin, Sr., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Ronald KLINK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sampy HARDIN, Jr.; Kathy Lee Hardin, Personal Representatives for the Estate of Sampy Hardin, Sr., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-1778.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 18, 2001.
Decided Oct. 25, 2001.
Ronald Klink, pro se.
Michael James Florio, Florio Law Offices, Clarksburg, WV, for appellees.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Klink seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his suit filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because Klink's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), 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 Corrections, 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 May 7, 2001. Klink's notice of appeal was filed on June 7, 2001. Because Klink failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Appellees' motion to 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.