UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7001

RICARDO EVANS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

OFFICER KENDRICKS; PI POWER; Lieutenant; CAPTAIN BELL; SERGEANT HOLLENQUEST; RONALD J. ANGELONE; P. A. TERRONG, Warden of ICCC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-99-95-AM)

Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 15, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricardo Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Ricardo Evans appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his

(West Supp. 1999) claim for failure to

comply with the court’s fee order. We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because Evans’ notice of appeal was not timely

filed.

Parties to a civil action are accorded thirty days after the

entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an

appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal

period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director,

Dep’t of Corrections,

(1978) (quoting United

States v. Robinson,

(1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May

21, 1999.* Evans’ notice of appeal was filed on July 17, 1999,

when it was given to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v.

Lack,

(1988). Because Evans failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny Evans’ pending motion

* Although the order from which Evans appeals was filed on May 20, 1999, it was entered on the district court’s docket sheet on May 21, 1999. May 21, 1999, is therefore the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray,

(4th Cir. 1986).

2 for summary judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3