Travis Bunday v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --