                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6999



GARCIA PENA REYO RAUL M. MONTERO,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-10-3-2-MU)


Submitted:   September 11, 2003       Decided:   September 24, 2003


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Manuel Raul Montero, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Manuel Raul Montero seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000).     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 in a civil case 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 March

18, 2003.   Giving Montero the benefit of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c), the

notice of appeal was filed on May 17, 2003.   Because Montero 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
