
    Thomas HARLEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doctor BEIOH, Doctor at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Nurse Gardner, Nurse at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Lieutenant Robinson, Lieutenant at Kershaw Correctional Institution; BRCI Prison Officials; Jon Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants—Appellees.
    
      No. 09-6234.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 21, 2009.
    Decided: June 1, 2009.
    Thomas Harley, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., Joel Steve Hughes, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Harley seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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. 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 February 26, 2008, 2008 WL 548861. The notice of appeal was filed on February 3, 2009. Because Harley failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for a preliminary injunction and 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. 
      
       For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on 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, 270, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     