UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1655
JAMES HARRY MCCARTY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-97-980-5-BO)
Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 29, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Harry McCarty, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Harry McCarty seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting McCarty’s motion for attorney’s fees in his social
security case. 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). This appeal period is “mandatory
and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,
264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229
(1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
January 16, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on May 28, 2003.
Because McCarty failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss
the appeal. We further deny McCarty’s former counsel’s motion for
leave to file reply to McCarty’s informal brief and deny as moot
McCarty’s motion to extend time to file his informal brief. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3