
    KY TAN LE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee, and U.S. Congress; Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, Defendants.
    No. 12-1685.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 16, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 20, 2012.
    Ky Tan Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Lucy Albright Bezdek, Social Security Administration, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appel-lee.
    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ky Tan Le seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting summary judgment for the Commissioner of Social Security, and affirming the administrative law judge’s decision that Le is subject to a five-month waiting period before receiving disability insurance benefits. He also seeks to appeal the court’s order denying as moot his motion for a court order. 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). “[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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on March 18 and April 5, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on May 18, 2012. Because Le 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  