PER CURIAM: Henry Christian Olsen seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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. RApp. 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 order was entered on the docket on January 10, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on March 14, 2005. Because Olsen failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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 In addition, we note that this appeal is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as a previous appeal of the same district court order was previously dismissed. See Olsen v. Angelone, 35 Fed.Appx. 384, 2002 WL 1068073, No. 02-6301 (4th Cir. May 29, 2002) (unpublished).