Case Name: Antonio BURTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SULLIVAN'S BODY SHOP, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-24
Citations: 297 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 08-1801
Parties: Antonio BURTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SULLIVAN’S BODY SHOP, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
Antonio BURTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SULLIVAN’S BODY SHOP, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-1801.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2008.
Antonio Burts, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Burts seeks to appeal an unspecified order in his action against Sullivan's Body Shop. The district court issued its most recent decision in the case on September 4, 2007, when it denied Burts' post-judgment motion for transcripts. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed as to even the most recent order of the district court.
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 (I960)).
The district court's latest order was entered on the docket on September 4, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed in July 2008. Because Burts 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.