Filed: Nov. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1262 STEPHEN GRANVILLE RULE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-184-1) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Di
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1262 STEPHEN GRANVILLE RULE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-184-1) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1262
STEPHEN GRANVILLE RULE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LARRY G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-184-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Granville Rule, Appellant Pro Se. Beverly Hope Zuckerman,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Granville Rule seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in Rule’s
disability benefits suit. 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). This appeal period is
“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of
Corr.,
434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,
361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
July 17, 2001. The notice of appeal was filed on March 3, 2005.
Because Rule failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Appellee’s
motion to dismiss the appeal. We deny Rule’s motions for summary
judgment, for remand, to expedite the appeal, and to transfer the
case. 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
- 2 -