Evelyn Manteris v. Michael Astrue

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00034-NKM-BWC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998665432]. Mailed to: Manteris. [11-1605]

Appeal: 11-1605

Document: 8

Date Filed: 08/29/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1605

EVELYN MANTERIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL
J.
ASTRUE,
Administration,

Commissioner

of

Social

Security

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00034-NKM-BWC)

Submitted:

August 25, 2011

Decided:

August 29, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Evelyn Manteris, Appellant Pro Se.
Kenneth DiVito, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Adam Siry, SOCIAL
SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1605

Document: 8

Date Filed: 08/29/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Evelyn Manteris seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.

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

jurisdictional requirement.”

of

appeal

in

a

civil

“[T]he

case

is

a

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

214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on March 30, 2011.
2011.

The notice of appeal was filed on June 2,

Because Manteris failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED
2