Case Name: Wilma ROWLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1979-01-24
Citations: 588 F.2d 449
Docket Number: No. 78-2735
Parties: Wilma ROWLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 588
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
Wilma ROWLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 78-2735
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 24, 1979.
Jacob A. Rose, Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc., Belle Glade, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Jack V. Eskenazi, U.S. Atty., Don R. Boswell, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellee.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, COLEMAN and VANCE, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant filed a request for judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. On the federal magistrate's recommendation, the District Judge dismissed the complaint, finding that appellant's having filed outside the sixty day statutory time period deprived the Court of jurisdiction. It appearing that the District Court failed to consider contrary authority in Weinberger v. Salfi, 1975, 422 U.S. 749, 764, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2466, 45 L.Ed.2d 522, 538, and Mathews v. Eldridge, 1976, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9, 96 S.Ct. 893, 899, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 29 n. 9, we reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand the cause for a consideration of the merits.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g).
. In both opinions the Court recognized that the sixty day period was a statute of limitations, waivable by the parties. Thus, since the parties did not raise the issue of compliance at the District Court level, it did not need to be considered in determining whether the District Court had jurisdiction.