UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-6183



BRENT C. MCLAUREN, JR.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of
South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-04-1672-9-13)


Submitted:   April 28, 2005                    Decided:   May 6, 2005


Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brent C. McLauren, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.      Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia,       South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Brent C. McLauren, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and

denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 

, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 

,

229 (1960)).

              The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

December 22, 2004.      The notice of appeal was filed on January 31,

2005.   Because McLauren 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 -