Regina Fletcher v. Michael Astrue, No. 12-2544 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2544 REGINA JUANITA FLETCHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Thomas M. DiGirolamo, Magistrate Judge. (1:10-cv-03358-TMD) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Regina Juanita Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Appellee. Alex Gordon, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Regina Juanita Fletcher seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s final order * upholding Security s denial of benefits. parties are accorded sixty the Commissioner Social In civil cases like Fletcher s, days after entry of court s final judgment or order to note an appeal. P. 4(a)(1)(B). of the district Fed. R. App. The order that Fletcher seeks to appeal was entered on September 24, 2012. Fletcher thus had sixty days, or until Friday, November 23, 2012, to file a notice of appeal. Nevertheless, Fletcher did not file a notice of appeal until December 7, 2012 two weeks too late. Because the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement, jurisdiction to consider Fletcher s claims. we lack Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED * Fletcher consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2

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.