UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1646
KEVIN C. NAUNDORF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
SSA NOTIFY,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Susan K. Gauvey, Magistrate Judge.
(1:10-cv-00650-SKG)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin C. Naundorf, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Allen F.
Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin C. Naundorf seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s
denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. * 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). “[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 magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket
on March 29, 2011. Accordingly, the latest day for filing a
timely notice of appeal was Tuesday, May 31, 2011. Naundorf’s
notice of appeal, however, was not received for filing until
Wednesday, June 1, 2011. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). Because
Naundorf failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
*
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), the parties
consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge.
2
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we are
constrained to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3