Case Name: Reverend Franklin C. REAVES; Fannie Melette; Lamar Melette; Betty R. Davis; Lewan Melette; Susan Crawford; Frances Huggins; David Frazier; Michael Small; Beulah McCummings; Moneik M. McCummings; Ashley T. McCummings, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Attorney General Henry McMaster, Defendant-Appellee, and United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Section; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Joseph D. Rich, Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Voting Section, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-24
Citations: 198 F. App'x 306
Docket Number: No. 06-1155
Parties: Reverend Franklin C. REAVES; Fannie Melette; Lamar Melette; Betty R. Davis; Lewan Melette; Susan Crawford; Frances Huggins; David Frazier; Michael Small; Beulah McCummings; Moneik M. McCummings; Ashley T. McCummings, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Attorney General Henry McMaster, Defendant—Appellee, and United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Section; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Joseph D. Rich, Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Voting Section, Defendants.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 198
Pages: 306–308

Head Matter:
Reverend Franklin C. REAVES; Fannie Melette; Lamar Melette; Betty R. Davis; Lewan Melette; Susan Crawford; Frances Huggins; David Frazier; Michael Small; Beulah McCummings; Moneik M. McCummings; Ashley T. McCummings, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Attorney General Henry McMaster, Defendant—Appellee, and United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Section; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Joseph D. Rich, Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Voting Section, Defendants.
No. 06-1155.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 2, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 24, 2006.
Reverend Franklin C. Reaves, Fannie Melette, Lamar Melette, Betty R. Davis, Lewan Melette, Susan Crawford, Frances Huggins, David Frazier, Michael Small, Beulah McCummings, Moneik M. McCummings, Ashley T. McCummings, Appellants Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Elizabeth Ramage McMahon, Office of the Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court's order denying relief on their motion objecting to the referral of pretrial matters to the magistrate judge for report and recommendation. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States is a party, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 amended judgment was entered on the docket on November 1, 2005, and the Appellants filed their notice of appeal on January 25, 2006. Because the Appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Even if the notice of appeal could be construed as a timely appeal from the district court's continued referral of matters to the magistrate judge, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal as the order is neither final nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).
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.