                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 99-6898



BURN’ARD HUNTER,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                                 Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CA-97-933-3)


Submitted:   August 19, 1999                 Decided:   August 26, 1999


Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Burn’ard Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Burn’ard Hunter seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994).   We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s 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, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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 “man-

datory and jurisdictional.”   Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Correc-

tions, 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 June

11, 1998.     Hunter’s notice of appeal was filed on July 6, 1999.

Because Hunter failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to ob-

tain 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
