Theresa Chieffallo-Craig v. Reliance Standard Life In

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01199-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999606568]. Mailed to: Craig. [15-1469]

Appeal: 15-1469

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1469

THERESA L. CHIEFFALLO-CRAIG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-01199-JFM)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theresa L. Chieffallo-Craig, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bachrach,
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1469

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Theresa L. Chieffallo-Craig seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

granting

summary

judgment

to

Defendant

in

her

civil suit brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (2012).

We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not
a party are accorded 30 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).
notice

of

appeal

requirement.”

in

a

civil

“[T]he timely filing of a

case

is

a

jurisdictional

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

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

18,

district

court

failed

to

2015.

file

on
a

The
April
timely

notice
24,

of

2015.

notice

of

appeal

was

Because
appeal

filed

in

the

Chieffallo-Craig
or

to

obtain

an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, * we dismiss the

*

Even if the untimely notice of appeal were construed as a
motion for an extension of time to file her notice under Rule
4(a)(5), we conclude that such a motion could not be granted
because Chieffallo-Craig filed her notice of appeal after the
30-day excusable neglect period expired.
See Dolan v. United
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 15-1469

Doc: 10

appeal.
legal
before

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

States, 560 U.S. 605, 610 (2010) (stating that “expiration of a
‘jurisdictional’ deadline prevents the court from . . .
extend[ing] that deadline”). Moreover, because Chieffallo-Craig
states that she received notice of the judgment two days after
it was entered, Rule 4(a)(6) does not apply.

3