Elridge V. HILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer CAMPBELL, Kershaw Correctional Institution Officer; Officer Vanderholt, Kershaw Correctional Institution Officer; Officer Collins, Kershaw Correctional Institution Officer; Officer Rennick, Kershaw Correctional Institution Officer; Officer Brown, Kershaw Correctional Institution Officer; Officer Lucas, Kershaw Correctional Institution Officer; Amy Hardin, Kershaw Correctional Institution Officer; R. Richardson, SCDC Transportation Terminal Correction Officer; Officer Evans, SCDC Transportation Terminal Correction Officer; Officer Davis, SCDC Transportation Terminal Correction Officer; Márcele Entzminger, Major; Lieutenant Nas, Tiger River Correctional Institution; Herb Johns, Inmate Grievance Coordinator; Richard Smith, Warden; Tonya Yates, Clinical Counselor Lee Cl; C. Tyner, Officer; Warden Faulkenberry, Defendants-Appellees, 230 F. App'x 316

PER CURIAM: Elridge V. Hills seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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 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, 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 December 28, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on February 9, 2007. Because Hills 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.