Opinion
23-1086
03-23-2023
DAN C. GRAMATIC, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SSA, Defendant-Appellee.
(D.C. No. 1:22-CV-00633-REB) (D. Colo.)
Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Pro se plaintiff-appellant Dan C. Gramatic filed an action in the district court, seeking review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's determination that Mr. Gramatic was no longer disabled and entitled to disability insurance benefits (DIB) pursuant to Title II and supplemental security income (SSI) pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Mr. Gramatic now seeks to appeal the district court's order and judgment dismissing that action. Upon consideration of the district court's docket and the applicable law, however, the court dismisses Mr. Gramatic's appeal as untimely for the reasons discussed below.
The timely filing of the notice of appeal in a civil case is both mandatory and jurisdictional. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007). Mr. Gramatic's pro se status does not affect this rule. See Mayfield v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 647 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th Cir. 1981) (dismissing pro se appeal filed three days late). In a civil case like this one, the notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after entry of the order or judgment being appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). This court has no authority to make equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 216.
Here, the district court dismissed Mr. Gramatic's lawsuit on August 11, 2022 and entered its final judgment that same day. [ECF Nos. 47, 48]. Mr. Gramatic did not file his notice of appeal until March 21, 2023: more than five months after the deadline had passed for him to do so. Accordingly, "[t]he time limit has run and we are without jurisdiction under the facts of this case." Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.2d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 1995).
APPEAL DISMISSED.