Sere v. Apfel, Commissioner

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1566 VIRGINIA G. SERE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Barry R. Poretz, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-874-A) Submitted: August 11, 1998 Decided: August 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virginia G. Sere, Appellant Pro Se. David Fallon Chermol, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadel- phia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judg- ments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The magistrate judge entered his order on February 9, 1998*; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on April 14, 1998, which is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel- lant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- * The parties consented to jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 2 ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3