
    Robert Lee DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael WADE, Sheriff Henrico County; Linda Ray, Medical Director; Dr. Ofogh, Chief Medical Doctor; PHY-American Correctional Healthcare, Incorporated, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-7309.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 27, 2005.
    Decided Feb. 2, 2005.
    Robert Lee Davis, Appellant pro se. William Fisher Etherington, Beale, Balfour, Davidson & Etherington, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; M. Pierce Rucker, II, Todd David Anderson, Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Robert Lee Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment for defendants in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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 (I960)).

In this case, the district court, by order entered 287 days after entry of judgment, attempted to reopen the appeal period. However, all the conditions set forth in Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6) were not satisfied, in that no motion was filed, the district court made no finding as to prejudice, and the court’s order was entered beyond the 180-day time period. In addition, the notice of appeal itself was not filed within fourteen days of the order, as the rule requires.

Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the appeal period and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Davis’s motion to amend issues on 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  