UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7257
GARY LEWIS MILLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
OFFICER RICHARDSON; SERGEANT POYTHRESS;
MARGARET JAMES, Officer; OFFICER PLEASENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-28-5-BR)
Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 23, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Lewis Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gary Lewis Miller 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 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 March 26, 1998;
Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on August 10, 1998, which is
beyond 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 jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel-
lant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant’s
motion objecting to the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2