Opinion
No. 20-1573
02-24-2021
DIANE PETTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.
George C. Piemonte, MARTIN JONES & PIEMONTE, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. David Nathaniel Mervis, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00012-FDW) Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George C. Piemonte, MARTIN JONES & PIEMONTE, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. David Nathaniel Mervis, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Diane Petty seeks to appeal the district court's order upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) denial of Petty's applications for 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 in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 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 (2007).
The district court entered its order on March 20, 2020, and the notice of appeal was due on May 19, 2020. Petty filed the notice of appeal on May 20, 2020. Because Petty failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we deny the Commissioner's motion for abeyance and Petty's motion to remand.
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