
    Quentin L. FORD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 08-7023.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 14, 2008.
    Decided: Aug. 22, 2008.
    
      Quentin L. Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Quentin L. Ford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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 March 31, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on May 6, 2008. Because Ford 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 arguraent because tbe facts and leSal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-ferials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process,

DISMISSED 
      
       For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the transmittal letter with the 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).
     