Case Name: Kevin C. NAUNDORF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee, and SSA Notify, Party-in-Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-14
Citations: 465 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 11-1646
Parties: Kevin C. NAUNDORF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee, and SSA Notify, Party-in-Interest.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Kevin C. NAUNDORF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee, and SSA Notify, Party-in-Interest.
No. 11-1646.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.
Kevin C. Naundorf, Appellant Pro se. Alex Gordon, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (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. Naundorfs 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 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.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), the parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge,