
    Richard E. DAVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doctor OHAR, Defendant—Appellee, and Gene Johnson, Regional Director; Rufus Fleming, Assistant Regional Director; Ronald Angelone, Ex-Regional Director; Warden Garrhitty, Ex-Chief Warden, GRCC; G. Hinkle, Chief Warden, GRCC; K. Davis, Associate Warden; C. Alderman, Associate Warden; P. Ohai, Dodor, Medical Director, GRCC; Nurse Burgess, Nurse, GRCC; Nurse Nhambure, Nurse, GRCC, R.N.; J. Capps, Grievance Coordinator; R. Jones, Secretary, HU-8-GRCC; Officer Anderson; P. Ohar, Doctor, Medical Director, Defendants.
    No. 04-7769.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 26, 2005.
    Decided: Feb. 11, 2005.
    Richard E. Davis, Appellant pro se.
    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Richard E. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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 judgment was entered on the docket on April 22, 2004. Because Davis 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  