Calvin Latimer v. US Social Security Administration, No. 15-2601 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2601 CALVIN LATIMER; SANDRA LATIMER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; EASTER CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, SEALS; NORTH Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00406-MOC-DSC) Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Latimer; Sandra Latimer, Appellants Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Calvin G. Latimer and Sandra Latimer seek to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their complaint as against the United States Social Security Administration and remanding their case to the state court from which it was removed and denying their “Motion for Disposition of Children.” 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 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). of appeal in a civil case “[T]he timely filing of a notice is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on August 16, 2012 and May 12, 2015. on December 29, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed Because the Latimers failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
