Antonio Burts seeks to file an appeal in his action against Sullivan’s Body Shop, 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 ju *331 risdietional.” 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)).

mi , . , ,, _ , , The district court s final order was entered on the docket on October 23, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed more than a year later. Because Burts failed to file a . timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal peri- , .. . ,f tu ,. od, we dismiss 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.