
    Rebecca GRIFFIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John W. ANDERSON, Sheriff; Sheriff's Office, Baltimore County; R. Jay Fisher, Sheriff; Captain Huson; Lewis F. Shapiro; Edward J. Friedman; Royreal S. Rhines; John H. Rhines; John H. Griffin; James E. Stancil; Stancil & Rhines Law Offices; Stewart D. Sachs Real Estate, LLC; Nicholas J. Pistolas; Kirk D. Crawley; Frederick L. Bierer; Law Offices of Bierer & Margolis, P.A.; Irvin Stanley Sass, of Baltimore Auction Company; Office of the Sheriff, of Baltimore County; Law Offices of Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, P.A., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-1425.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 27, 2005.
    Decided: Sept. 29, 2005.
    Rebecca Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Rebecca Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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 March 3, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on April 12, 2005. Because Griffin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Griffin’s pending motion for abeyance and 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  