                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-1180




MARY S. REID,

                  Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.


JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal
Service Agency,

                  Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00267-MR-DCK)


Submitted:    April 24, 2008                 Decided:   April 29, 2008


Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mary S. Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Sidney P. Alexander, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Mary S. Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing her employment discrimination action with prejudice. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

           When the United States or its officer or agency is a

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

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

November 9, 2007.   The notice of appeal was filed on January 31,

2008.   Because Reid failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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




                               - 2 -
