Calvin Latimer v. US Social Security

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999734595-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00406-MOC-DSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999836859]. Mailed to: C. Latimer, S. Latimer. [15-2601]

Appeal: 15-2601

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2601

CALVIN LATIMER; SANDRA LATIMER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; EASTER
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

SEALS;

NORTH

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00406-MOC-DSC)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Latimer; Sandra Latimer, Appellants Pro Se. Paul Bradford
Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2601

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Calvin G. Latimer and Sandra Latimer seek to appeal the
district court’s orders dismissing their complaint as against the
United States Social Security Administration and remanding their
case to the state court from which it was removed and denying their
“Motion for Disposition of Children.”

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 60 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).
of

appeal

in

a

civil

case

“[T]he timely filing of a notice

is

a

jurisdictional

requirement.”

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on
August 16, 2012 and May 12, 2015.
on December 29, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed

Because the Latimers failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 15-2601

Doc: 15

materials

before

Filed: 05/31/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3