Case Name: Alfreda COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-20
Citations: 88 F. App'x 585
Docket Number: No. 03-7702
Parties: Alfreda COLEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
Alfreda COLEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7702.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
Decided Feb. 20, 2004.
Alfreda Coleman, Appellant pro se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Alfreda Coleman seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 September 19, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on October 29, 2003. Because Coleman 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