Joseph Burch filed two civil actions against Philip Morris USA, Inc. In Burch’s first lawsuit, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and denied relief in January 2004. Burch moved to rescind the district court’s order, but that motion was denied in June 2005. Burch’s appeal was assigned No. 05-2382. In Burch’s second action, the district court denied relief in June 2005. * Burch’s appeal was assigned No. 05-2381. Both notices of appeal were filed on December 5, 2005.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and ju *362 risdictional.” Browder v. Dir., 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 (I960)).

Because Burch failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period in either case, we dismiss the appeals. We deny his motions for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not assist in the decisional process.

DISMISSED.