Case Name: Jerry Lewis ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ralph DOBBINS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-04
Citations: 65 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 03-6297
Parties: Jerry Lewis ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ralph DOBBINS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 65
Pages: 493–493

Head Matter:
Jerry Lewis ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ralph DOBBINS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-6297.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 2003.
Decided June 4, 2003.
Jerry Lewis Adams, Appellant Pro Se. James Rutledge Henderson, IV, Henderson & Forster, Tazewell, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Lewis Adams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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. 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 10, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on February 11, 2003. Because Adams 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. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).