Garcia v. City of New York

Second Circuit

Garcia v. City of New York

417 F. App'x 39

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 2011

Docket10-970-cv

StatusUnpublished

This text of 417 F. App'x 39 (Garcia v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garcia v. City of New York, 417 F. App'x 39 (2d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Raymundo Garcia appeals from a September 23, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Swain, /.) granting in its entirety the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

Although neither party has raised the issue of our appellate jurisdiction, “we have an independent obligation to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir.2006). In this case, judgment was entered below on September 23, 2009, but Garcia’s notice of appeal was not filed until March 16, 2010, making it untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal “must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered”). Because “timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement,” we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Napoli v. Town of New Windsor, 600 F.3d 168, 170 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam) (quoting In re Am. Safety Indem. Co., 502 F.3d 70, 72 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam)) (internal quotation mark omitted). In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the letters submitted by the parties pursuant to our March 11, 2011 order. See Order U.S.C.A. Dkt. No. 10-970-cv, ECF No. 80.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Garcia’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Raymundo Garcia appeals from a September 23, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Swain, /.) granting in its entirety the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

Although neither party has raised the issue of our appellate jurisdiction, “we have an independent obligation to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir.2006). In this case, judgment was entered below on September 23, 2009, but Garcia’s notice of appeal was not filed until March 16, 2010, making it untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal “must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered”). Because “timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement,” we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Napoli v. Town of New Windsor, 600 F.3d 168, 170 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam) (quoting In re Am. Safety Indem. Co., 502 F.3d 70, 72 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam)) (internal quotation mark omitted). In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the letters submitted by the parties pursuant to our March 11, 2011 order. See Order U.S.C.A. Dkt. No. 10-970-cv, ECF No. 80.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Garcia’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 F. App'x 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-city-of-new-york-ca2-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack