
    Edward L. FLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-2477.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2001.
    Decided May 2, 2001
    Edward L. Floyd, pro se. Thomas Samuel Williamson, Jr., Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Edward L. Floyd appeals the district court’s orders dismissing with prejudice his Fair Labor Standards Act suit and denying his motion for reconsideration of that order.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), 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 dismissing Floyd’s suit was entered on the court’s docket on July 20, 2000. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on October 24, 2000. Floyd did not file his motion to reconsider within ten days of the district court’s order dismissing his suit, consequently the time period for filing his appeal of that order was not tolled. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4); Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir.2001). Therefore, Floyd’s appeal is timely only as to the district court’s denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration, construed here under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See, e.g., Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir.1996).

This Court reviews a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court’s denial of Floyd’s motion for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we dismiss Floyd’s appeal of the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his Fair Labor Standards Act suit for lack of jurisdiction because Floyd’s notice of appeal was untimely as to that order. We affirm the district court’s denial of Floyd’s motion for reconsideration. Floyd’s motion for leave to file a reply brief is denied. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.  