                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6297



JERRY LEWIS ADAMS,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


RALPH DOBBINS,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-01-964)


Submitted:   May 29, 2003                   Decided:   June 4, 2003


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerry Lewis Adams, Appellant Pro Se. James Rutledge Henderson, IV,
HENDERSON & FORSTER, Tazewell, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Jerry Lewis Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.

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. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229

(1960)).

     The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

January 10, 2003.   The notice of appeal was filed on February 11,

2003.* Because Adams 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                         DISMISSED


     *
       For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

                                  2
