Armagene Ellis-Smith v. Michael Astrue, No. 10-2281 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2281 ARMAGENE ELLIS-SMITH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant Appellee, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00604-TDS-WWD) Submitted: June 27, 2011 Decided: July 15, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Armagene Ellis-Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Nancy B. Salafia, Regional Counsel, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Armagene court s order Ellis-Smith adopting the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and upholding the denial of Ellis-Smith s application 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, 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). timely filing of a notice of jurisdictional requirement. appeal in a civil case [T]he is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on September 14, November 16, 2010. 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on Because Ellis-Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 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.
