Kimberly A. Reath v. SSA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00053-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000088183]. Mailed to: Kimberly A. Reath 14001 Boros Road Elberta, AL 36530. [17-1228]

Appeal: 17-1228

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1228

KIMBERLY A. REATH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00053-H)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimberly A. Reath, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: May 25, 2017

Appeal: 17-1228

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kimberly A. Reath seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing her complaint. 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). “[T]he
timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 14, 2016. The notice
of appeal was filed on February 16, 2017. Because Reath 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
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

2