Case Name: Dwayne E. SYDNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John R. KUPLINSKI, Jail Administrator; Kaveh Ofogh, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-27
Citations: 267 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 07-7694
Parties: Dwayne E. SYDNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John R. KUPLINSKI, Jail Administrator; Kaveh Ofogh, Doctor, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
Dwayne E. SYDNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John R. KUPLINSKI, Jail Administrator; Kaveh Ofogh, Doctor, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-7694.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 27, 2008.
Dwayne E. Sydnor, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne E. Sydnor seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his civil rights 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. 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 August 3, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on November 4, 2007. Because Sydnor 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 Sydnor's motion for seizure of medical records. 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).