Case Name: George Samuel GREEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-29
Citations: 11 F. App'x 71
Docket Number: No. 00-7714
Parties: George Samuel GREEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
George Samuel GREEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 00-7714.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 22, 2001.
Decided March 29, 2001.
George Samuel Green, Jr., pro se. Matthew P. Dullaghan, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
George Samuel Green, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Green'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 2, 2000. Green's notice of appeal was filed on November 26, 2000. Because Green failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Green's outstanding motions, deny a certificate of appealability and 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 given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).