UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6124
ROLAND DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MS. DORSEY; MR. GREENE; MICHALE SHWARTZ; MR.
COSCUS; DARRYL WATKINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-98-114-23-6-AK)
Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 20, 1999
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roland Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Walter Doar, Jr., David J.
Mills, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Georgetown, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roland Davis 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 August 7, 1998;
Davis's notice of appeal was filed on January 11, 1999, which is
beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Davis'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 his ap-
peal. We therefore 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
2