Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01469/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01469-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1469

THERESA L. CHIEFFALLO-CRAIG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-01199-JFM)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theresa L. Chieffallo-Craig, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bachrach, 

WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1469 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM:

Theresa L. Chieffallo-Craig seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in her 

civil suit brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (2012). We dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was 

not timely filed.

Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not 

a party are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district 

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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 order was entered on the docket on 

February 18, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed in the 

district court on April 24, 2015. Because Chieffallo-Craig

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an 

extension or reopening of the appeal period,* we dismiss the 

* Even if the untimely notice of appeal were construed as a 

motion for an extension of time to file her notice under Rule 

4(a)(5), we conclude that such a motion could not be granted 

because Chieffallo-Craig filed her notice of appeal after the 

30-day excusable neglect period expired. See Dolan v. United 

2

 

(Continued)

Appeal: 15-1469 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
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

States, 560 U.S. 605, 610 (2010) (stating that “expiration of a 

‘jurisdictional’ deadline prevents the court from . . . 

extend[ing] that deadline”). Moreover, because Chieffallo-Craig 

states that she received notice of the judgment two days after 

it was entered, Rule 4(a)(6) does not apply.

3

 

Appeal: 15-1469 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3