UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1906

DONNALISA LYONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 01-157-CCB)

Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 18, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnalisa Lyons, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Anthony DiPietro, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Donnalisa Lyons noted an appeal from the district court’s denial of relief in her employment discrimination action. To the extent that Lyons appeals from the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Lyons’ notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). This appeal period is 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)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 7, 2001; Lyons’ notice of appeal was filed on July 11, 2001, beyond the sixty-day appeal period. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to that order.

Lyons’ notice of appeal was timely as to the district court’s denial of her 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 reconsideration on the reasoning of the district court. Lyons v. Henderson, No. CA-01- 157-CCB (D. Md. July 6, 2001). 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, AFFIRMED IN PART