PER CURIAM: Aaron Anthony Edison appeals the district court’s order granting the Department of Health and Human Resources’ motion for
summary judgment on Edison’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action; granting the State of West Virginia and Governor Wise’s motion to dismiss; and denying Edison’s motions for general relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. On appeal, Edison first assigns error to the district court’s denial of his “Third Renewal Motion for Case to be Awarded to Plaintiff Due to Defendant’s Third Time Failure to Respond to Complaint and Summons in the Thirty Day Time Period Allotted by Law.” We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Edison’s motion. Edison next challenges the district court award of
summary judgment to the Department of Health and Human Resources. However, because Edison seeks to overturn final state court judgments against him, the district court lacked jurisdiction over his complaint. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) (stating that the Rook-er-Feldman abstention doctrine establishes that a district court lacks jurisdiction over a litigant’s challenge to a state court decision, including challenges alleging the state court’s action was unconstitutional).
Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment on those grounds. Edison asks this court to “overturn and/or dismiss this District Court decision to sanction this plaintiff to pay attorney fees in the amount of $960.80.” We lack jurisdiction to review this order because Edison never filed a timely notice of appeal as to this order. 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, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)). The district court’s judgment order was entered on the docket on October 6, 2004. Because Edison failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period as to this order, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and motion to dismiss, and dismiss Edison’s appeal from the district court’s order awarding the Department of Health and Human Resources reasonable costs and fees. 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. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART