
    Dawn FIGMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-1287.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2003.
    Decided May 20, 2003.
    
      Dawn Figman, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Dawn Figman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying her motions for transcript at government expense, and to disqualify a district court judge. 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 orders were entered on the docket on January 22, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on February 24, 2003. Because Figman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Figman’s motion for transcripts at government expense and deny Sprint’s motion to quash 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.  