Case Name: George SALEMO, President, Childers & Jenkins, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-11
Citations: 180 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 05-2161
Parties: George SALEMO, President, Childers & Jenkins, Incorporated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 415–415

Head Matter:
George SALEMO, President, Childers & Jenkins, Incorporated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 05-2161.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 17, 2006.
Decided April 11, 2006.
George Salerno, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Vasco, William Michael Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
George Salerno seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint. 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 judgment was entered on the docket on May 25, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on September 30, 2005. Because Salerno 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).