UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2492
ROBERT D. COX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NATIONSBANK CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA COR-
PORATION; KENNETH D. LEWIS, President, Bank of
America; HUGH L. MCCOLL, JR., Chairman and
CEO, Bank of America; JAMES H. HANCE, JR.,
CFO, NationsBank; GARLAND FRASIER, Bank of
America, Charleston, South Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-99-2061-2-18)
Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 27, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert D. Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Peterson Groves, Sr.,
YOUNG, CLEMENT, RIVERS & TISDALE, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert D. Cox filed an untimely notice of appeal. NationsBank
Corporation filed a motion to dismiss Cox’s appeal as untimely. We
grant NationsBank Corporation’s motion and dismiss Cox’s appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of ap-
peal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “manda-
tory 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)). Parties to civil actions have thirty
days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal
from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only
exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends
the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
The district court entered its order on August 29, 2000; Cox’s
notice of appeal was filed on November 15, 2000, which is beyond
the thirty-day appeal period. Cox’s failure to note a timely ap-
peal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court
without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal. We
therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument be-
cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2