In appeal No. 06-1278, Charles A. Fromal and Patricia W. Fromal appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fromal v. Lake Monticello Owner’s Ass’n, No. 3:05-cv-00067-nkm, 2006 WL 167894 (W.D.Va. Jan. 23, 2006).

In appeal No. 06-1670, the Fromals seek to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their action against Defendants for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. 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 was entered on the docket on May 3, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on June 9, 2006. Because the Fromals failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con *205 tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 06-1278, AFFIRMED.

No. 06-1670, DISMISSED.