Glen Shrewsbury v. Michael Astrue, No. 10-1023 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1023 GLEN E. SHREWSBURY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. R. Clarke VanDervort, Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00840) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glen E. Shrewsbury, Appellant Pro Se. Lori Riye Karimoto, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Fred B. Westfall, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Glen E. Shrewsbury seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s order affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that Shrewsbury is not entitled to benefits. 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). appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. This Browder v. Dir., 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 September 30, 2009. to extension appeal. legal file or notice of appeal See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). December 4, 2009. failed The a timely reopening of notice the of appeal appeal was filed on Because Shrewsbury or period, to we obtain dismiss an the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
