In these consolidated appeals, Michael J. Morrissey and the Estate of Dorothy L. Morrissey seek to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their civil actions and denying their motion for reconsideration.

In No. 06-1828, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 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. 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. 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 (1960)). The district court’s order dismissing the civil actions was entered on the docket on June 7, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on July 14, 2006. Because Morrissey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal in No. 06-1828.

In No. 06-2016, Morrissey appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. Because he filed the motion outside of the ten-day window required for a Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion, it is treated as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. See In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) does not bring up for review the merits of the underlying substantive judgment, nor does it toll the period for filing an appeal of the underlying judgment. Browder, 434 U.S. at 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556. This court reviews the denial of a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion. Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration, as Morrissey failed to demonstrate any grounds that would entitle him to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration in No. 06-2016.

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.

No. 06-1828 DISMISSED.

No. 06-2016 AFFIRMED.