UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1393

ARTHUR B. BOYD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORA- TION, d/b/a R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Cen- ter; JOEL LEE; THE BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY, d/b/a “The Sun” Newspaper; DOUGLAS BIRCH; THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, d/b/a The Washington Post; BRIAN MOOAR; JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS, INCOR- PORATED, d/b/a Prince George’s Journal; JOHN DOE; AMERICAN MEDIA, INCORPORATED, d/b/a National Enquirer, Incorporated, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-3105-WMN)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 25, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur B. Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Peter Edward Keith, David William Kinkopf, GALLAGHER, EVELIUS & JONES, Baltimore, Maryland; Douglas D. Connah, Jr., VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, Maryland; Kevin Taylor Baine, Max Ian Stier, Paul Martin Wolff, Julie C. Hilden, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, Washington, D.C.; Mary R. Craig, MARY R. CRAIG, P.A., Towson, Maryland; Alice Neff Lucan, Washington, D.C., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Jan. 16, 1998; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on March 12, 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 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

* This appeal was interlocutory when filed. The case was closed in the district court on May 18, 1998.

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED