Case Name: Phillip Andrew MANNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ola LEWIS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-18
Citations: 210 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 06-1933
Parties: Phillip Andrew MANNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ola LEWIS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 238–238

Head Matter:
Phillip Andrew MANNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ola LEWIS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-1933.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2006.
Phillip Andrew Manning, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Andrew Manning seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint 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. 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 (I960)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on July 18, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on August 21, 2006. Because Manning 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.