UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2908

ELDON WAYNE RILEY, JR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WEYERHAEUSER PAPER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-94-11-3-MU)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eldon Wayne Riley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Max Daniel McGinn, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and denying his motion for reconsideration. With regard to the entry of summary judgment, Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an exten- sion of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Direc- tor, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on September 5, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 1995. Appellant's motion for reconsideration, filed more than ten days after the order granting summary judgment, does not toll the appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(F). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdic- tion to consider this case. We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal.

Appellant's notice of appeal is timely with respect to the district court's order denying the motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion for reconsideration on the reasoning of the district court.

Riley v. Weyerhaeuser Paper Co., No. CA-94-11-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Oct.

11, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion to bar Defendant from con- tacting "potential witnesses" and his motion to prevent Defendant from making architectural changes to its facilities pending appel- late review. 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 IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART