                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-2448


PAMELA V. EBRON,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:17-cv-00040-MSD-LRL)


Submitted: April 19, 2018                                         Decided: April 23, 2018


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Pamela V. Ebron, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Patrick Shean, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Pamela V. Ebron seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without

prejudice her complaint requesting review of the Acting Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration’s decision. * 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).

“[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’s order was entered on the docket on October 20, 2017. The

notice of appeal was filed on December 22, 2017. Because Ebron 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


       *
         The district court’s order is final and appealable because the defect identified by
the district court must be cured by something more than an amendment to the allegations
in the complaint. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th
Cir. 2015).


                                             2
