Glen Shrewsbury v. Michael Astrue

Filing 920100526

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1023

GLEN E. SHREWSBURY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. R. Clarke VanDervort, Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00840)

Submitted:

May 20, 2010

Decided:

May 26, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glen E. Shrewsbury, Appellant Pro Se. Lori Riye Karimoto, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Fred B. Westfall, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Glen E. Shrewsbury seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge's order affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that Shrewsbury is not entitled to benefits. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the

notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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). appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." This

Browder v.

Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court's order was entered on the docket on September 30, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on

December 4, 2009. failed to file or a

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). timely of notice the of appeal

Because Shrewsbury or to we obtain an the

extension appeal. legal

reopening

appeal

period,

dismiss

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are adequately presented in the materials

contentions

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3