Filed: Jun. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1469 THERESA L. CHIEFFALLO-CRAIG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01199-JFM) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theresa L. Chieffal
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1469 THERESA L. CHIEFFALLO-CRAIG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01199-JFM) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theresa L. Chieffall..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1469
THERESA L. CHIEFFALLO-CRAIG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-01199-JFM)
Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theresa L. Chieffallo-Craig, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bachrach,
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theresa L. Chieffallo-Craig seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in her
civil suit brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (2012). We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not
a party are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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’s order was entered on the docket on
February 18, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed in the
district court on April 24, 2015. Because Chieffallo-Craig
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, * we dismiss the
*
Even if the untimely notice of appeal were construed as a
motion for an extension of time to file her notice under Rule
4(a)(5), we conclude that such a motion could not be granted
because Chieffallo-Craig filed her notice of appeal after the
30-day excusable neglect period expired. See Dolan v. United
(Continued)
2
appeal. 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
States,
560 U.S. 605, 610 (2010) (stating that “expiration of a
‘jurisdictional’ deadline prevents the court from . . .
extend[ing] that deadline”). Moreover, because Chieffallo-Craig
states that she received notice of the judgment two days after
it was entered, Rule 4(a)(6) does not apply.
3