
    Leonard A. SMITH, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. Josephine MITCHELL; Rebecca Smith; Fred Pauer; Brenda Young; Behavioral Disorders Treatment Program, Defendants—Appellees. Leonard A. Smith, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Lew E. Wallace, III; Alfred Oliver; Michael Malo; Delmer Burnett; Ernest A. Larch; Donald Ray Perry; Jerry Marcus; Frankie Muller; Calvin Williams; Robert W. Wideman; Anthony McQueen; Calvin Gary; Marion Campbell; Joe H. Galloway; Alvin Cantrell; Raymond Magazine; Kevin G. Belt, Plaintiffs, v. William D. Catoe, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant—Appellee. Leonard A. Smith, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Larry Montgomery, Doctor, individually and as Program Coordinator of the Behavioral Disorder Treatment Program of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health; Josephine Mitchell; Fred Pauer; South Carolina Department of Mental Health, Defendants—Appellees. Nelson Booth; Paul Newman Allen; Donald L. McCracken, Movants. Leonard A. Smith, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Latoya Spell; Josephine Mitchell; Rebecca Smith; Fred Pauer; Ranki Pickens; Brenda Young, Defendants—Appellees. Leonard A. Smith, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Ralph S. Beardsley, Warden of Turbeville Correctional Institution; George Martin, III, Warden, Regional Administrator; Armstrong, Retired Deputy Warden; Sherri Lopez; David Arel, Defendants—Appellees.
    Nos. 04-7321, 04-7322, 04-7323, 04-7324, 04-7325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.
    Decided Dec. 22, 2004.
    Leonard A. Smith, Appellant pro se. Joseph Crouch Coleman, Columbia, South Carolina; Vinton DeVane Lide, Vinton D. Lide & Associates, Lexington, South Carolina; John Evans James III, Lee, Erter, Wilson, James, Holler & Smith, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Leonard A. Smith filed notices of appeals in these five consolidated appeals (appeal nos. 04-7321(L); 04-7322; 04-7323; 04-7324; and 04-7325) in which the district court assessed against him court filing fees under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and then ultimately dismissed the cases. 'We dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were not timely filed either as to the district court’s application of the PLRA to Smith, or to its dismissal of the underlying actions.

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)(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 orders dismissing the underlying actions were éntered on the docket on November 21, 2000, April 3, 2000, April 15, 2002, April 13, 2000, and May 17, 2001. The notices of appeal collectively were filed on August 3, 2004. Because Smith failed to file timely notices of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal periods, we dismiss these appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials presented before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED  