UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2279
EVELYN DOVE COLEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:09-cv-00032-FL)
Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 21, 2012
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Evelyn Dove Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Elisa Frances Donohoe,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Evelyn Dove Coleman seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying her motions to remand and to compel and
granting the defendant’s motions to set aside the judgment and
to dismiss. Coleman also seeks to appeal the district court’s
denial of her motions to reconsider. 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 district court’s judgment was entered on September
13, 2010. The district court’s order denying Coleman’s motions
to reconsider was entered on November 11, 2010. The notice of
appeal was filed on August 5, 2011. Because Coleman failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We
2
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