                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 98-7098



WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


ARCHIE C. GEE, Warden; DOCTOR TOMASINO; DOCTOR
GRAIG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DICKUS; NURSE
CAMPFIELD; NURSE GRAY; THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
98-895-DKC)


Submitted:   December 17, 1998            Decided:   January 6, 1999


Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which   to   file   in   the     district   court    notices     of   appeal    from

judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only excep-

tions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the

time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

     The     district    court    entered   its     order   on   April   3,    1998;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on July 23, 1998, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel-

lant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                                         DISMISSED




                                        2
