
    Charles Woodrow TAGGART, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Mark R. WARNER, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 07-7597.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 27, 2008.
    Decided: April 2, 2008.
    Charles Woodrow Taggart, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Woodrow Taggart seeks to appeal the order of the district court denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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. 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 August 28, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on October 10, 2007. • Because Taggart 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. 
      
      . This case was decided by. magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
     
      
      . For the purpose of this appeal, we assume appearing on the that the date notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     