USCA4 Appeal: 24-1123 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1123

PAULA HANSON-HODGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (8:22-cv-02818-BAH)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paula Hanson-Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Jackman Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1123 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Paula Hanson-Hodge seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, on Hodge’s claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. 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 in a civil case, 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). “[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 entered its order on December 1, 2023, and the appeal period expired on January 30, 2024. Hanson-Hodge filed the notice of appeal on February 2, 2024. Because Hanson-Hodge 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED