Case Name: Maurice Preston SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE RIDGE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY; Dr. Cohen; Mary Rosser, Nurse; Captain Langhorn, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-02
Citations: 201 F. App'x 910
Docket Number: No. 06-6866
Parties: Maurice Preston SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE RIDGE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY; Dr. Cohen; Mary Rosser, Nurse; Captain Langhorn, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 201
Pages: 910–911

Head Matter:
Maurice Preston SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE RIDGE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY; Dr. Cohen; Mary Rosser, Nurse; Captain Langhorn, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6866.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 26, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 2, 2006.
Maurice Preston Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, Perry Law Firm, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Maurice Preston Scott seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action without prejudice. 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. RApp. 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 September 30, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on May 5, 2006. Because Scott 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.