
    Charlie L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harry E. WILSON, Staff Attorney of Department of Public Instruction, Defendant-Appellee, v. Robert Reilly; W. Clark Goodman; Mark P. Henriques; Richard Lee Rainey; Jim D. Cooley; Harry D. Winkler; Charles J. Williams; Grace Mynatt; Marvin K. Gray; Charlie Williams, Movants-Appellees.
    No. 08-1464.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 19, 2008.
    Decided: June 24, 2008.
    Charlie L. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Ellen Crumpler, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Richard Lee Rainey, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    
      Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Charlie L. Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions following the denial of relief on his civil complaint. 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. RApp. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., 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 18, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 2008. Because Richardson 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.  