                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 04-6692



JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          and


MONIQUE MAYES BROWN,

                                                             Plaintiff,


          versus


M. M. DOVE, Attorney General,

                                                 Defendant - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CA-96-3796-1-BEL)


Submitted:   August 12, 2004                 Decided:   August 18, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion for a rehearing of its order

dismissing his complaint without prejudice.   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 denying Brown’s motion was

entered on the docket on June 2, 2000.   The notice of appeal was

filed on March 8, 2004.    Because Brown 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


                              - 2 -
