UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2558
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (MISC-99-71-1)
Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur O. Armstrong, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Arthur O. Armstrong seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for leave to file a complaint. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Armstrong’s 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, see
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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 “man-
datory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Correc-
tions, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,
361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on Octo-
ber 4, 1999. Armstrong’s notice of appeal was filed on December 8,
2000. Because Armstrong 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 mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2