UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2029
JAMES H. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BERKELEY COUNTY; JAMES H. ROZIER, JR., super-
visor and individual; ROBERT W. METTS, tax
collector and individual; CAROLYN M. UMPHLETT,
treasurer and individual; JOHN DOES; JANE
DOES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-96-2336-2-23)
Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James H. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Patrick Corrigan, III,
GRIMBALL & CABANISS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal
are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and
jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 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 judg-
ments 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 May 2, 1997; Appellant
did not file a notice of appeal within the thirty-day appeal
period. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an
extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdic-
tion to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2