Armagene Ellis-Smith v. Michael Astrue

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-00604-TDS-WWD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998632644]. Mailed to: Armagene Ellis-Smith. [10-2281]

Appeal: 10-2281

Document: 16

Date Filed: 07/15/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2281

ARMAGENE ELLIS-SMITH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00604-TDS-WWD)

Submitted:

June 27, 2011

Decided:

July 15, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Armagene Ellis-Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Gill Paul Beck,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina;
Nancy B. Salafia, Regional Counsel, Boston, Massachusetts, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-2281

Document: 16

Date Filed: 07/15/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Ellis-Smith

to

PER CURIAM:
Armagene
court’s

order

adopting

the

seeks

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district

magistrate

judge and upholding the denial of Ellis-Smith’s application for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
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).
timely

filing

of

a

notice

of

jurisdictional requirement.”

appeal

in

a

civil

case

“[T]he
is

a

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on

September

14,

November 16, 2010.

2010.

The

notice

of

appeal

was

filed

on

Because Ellis-Smith 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

2

Appeal: 10-2281

Document: 16

Date Filed: 07/15/2011

Page: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3