UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7567

GLENN LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

JOE MCQUEEN, Sheriff of New Hanover County Jail, individually and in his official capac- ity as Sheriff; JOHN DOE, Captain of same jail, individually and in his official capac- ity; JOHN DOE(S), Sergeants, individually and in their official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-265-5-BO)

Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenn Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Glenn Lee Williams 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 June 3, 1998; Williams’ notice of appeal was filed on July 30, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Williams' 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 appeal. 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