Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0256-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas F. KASTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-1451
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 26, 2017
    Decided: September 28, 2017
    Thomas F. Kaston, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Frances Golshani, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas F. Kaston seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Kaston’s application for disability benefits. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 23, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on March 27, 2017. Because Kaston 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 
      
       Although we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we note that Kaston waived appellate review of the district court's order by failing to file timely specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation despite being warned of the consequences. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).