Case Name: William Howard SCHALLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-30
Citations: 592 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 14-2240
Parties: William Howard SCHALLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 592
Pages: 196–196

Head Matter:
William Howard SCHALLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-2240.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 30, 2015.
William Howard Schaller, Appellant Pro Se. Marc David Epstein, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Howard Schaller seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to uphold the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits. Parties in civil actions to which an agency of the United States is a party are accorded sixty days after the district court's entry of judgment to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(ii), 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 final judgment was entered on the docket on September 11, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed sixty-two days later, on November 12, 2014. Because Schaller failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is and 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.