                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-1796



JOHN J. BUCKSHAW,      t/a   J.J.   Buckshaw   &
Associates,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


STORAGE USA, INCORPORATED,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:03-cv-01540-GBL)


Submitted:   November 6, 2006           Decided:    November 22, 2006


Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John J. Buckshaw, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           John J. Buckshaw seeks to appeal the district court’s

order   denying   his   motion   to   reopen   the   case   and   amend   his

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. 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

May 16, 2006.     The notice of appeal was filed on July 11, 2006.

Because Buckshaw 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 -
