Case Name: Benjamin L. DOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. FURY, c/o VideoTronic; Donald Global Software, Global Software, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-13
Citations: 50 F. App'x 140
Docket Number: No. 02-1649
Parties: Benjamin L. DOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. FURY, c/o VideoTronic; Donald Global Software, Global Software, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 140–141

Head Matter:
Benjamin L. DOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. FURY, c/o VideoTronic; Donald Global Software, Global Software, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-1649.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
Decided Nov. 13, 2002.
Benjamin L. Doyle, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin L. Doyle seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action as frivolous. 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. Director, 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 January 18, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on June 1, 2002. Because Doyle failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Doyle's motion for appointment of counsel. 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. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).