Case Name: Michael REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections; Helen H. Fahey, Chairwoman, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-01
Citations: 197 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 06-6947
Parties: Michael REYNOLDS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections; Helen H. Fahey, Chairwoman, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 197
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
Michael REYNOLDS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections; Helen H. Fahey, Chairwoman, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6947.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 24, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 1, 2006.
Michael Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Reynolds seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing his civil rights case. 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. 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 (1960)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on April 4, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on May 8, 2006. Because Reynolds 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
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).