Travis Bunday v. Frank Bisignano

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-2174
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2174 Doc: 15 Filed: 10/09/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2174

TRAVIS BUNDAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:24-cv-00131-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted: August 6, 2025 Decided: October 9, 2025

Before AGEE, WYNN, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Barrett R. Richardson, RICHARDSON & ROSENBERG, LLC, Portsmouth, Virginia, for Appellant. Erik S. Siebert, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Kent P. Porter, Assistant United States Attorney, Virginia Van Valkenburg, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2174 Doc: 15 Filed: 10/09/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Travis Bunday appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration on Bunday’s complaint challenging the denial of Bunday’s

application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and perceive no

reversible error in the district court’s finding that Bunday was not entitled to equitable

tolling of the limitations period for filing his complaint. See Menominee Indian Tribe v.

United States, 577 U.S. 250, 256 (2016) (explaining that litigant must establish both

diligence and extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling to apply); see also Ott v.

Md. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 909 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 2018) (explaining

that “a party’s misconception about the operation of the statute of limitations is neither

extraordinary nor a circumstance external to [his] control” and that “an attorney’s mistake

in interpreting a statute does not amount to an extraordinary circumstance” (citation

modified)).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Bunday v. O’Malley,

No. 2:24-cv-00131-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2024). 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.

AFFIRMED