Michael O. DeVaughn seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his action alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and his motion to reconsider. Regarding the district court’s order dismissing the action, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because DeVaughn’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days if the United States is a party after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order dismissing DeVaughn’s action was entered on the docket on October 1, 2003. DeVaughn’s notice of *309 appeal was filed on February 24, 2004. * Because DeVaughn failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.

Regarding DeVaughn’s timely appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief. CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART