Levine v. Janosek

Second Circuit

Levine v. Janosek

308 F. App'x 527

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided January 30, 2009·No. No. 07-2987-cv·Published

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Samuel M. Levine, proceeding pro se, appeals from an April 13, 2007 grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant John Janosek.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) requires that a notice of appeal be [528] filed within thirty days of the entry of the judgment or order being appealed. Levine’s thirty-day filing period expired on May 14. Levine’s notice of appeal, however, was not filed until May 16, 2007, outside of the thirty day window. In Bowles v. Russell, the Supreme Court made “clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Accordingly, we DISMISS Levine’s appeal, as its untimely filing deprives us of jurisdiction.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Samuel M. Levine, proceeding pro se, appeals from an April 13, 2007 grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant John Janosek.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) requires that a notice of appeal be [528] filed within thirty days of the entry of the judgment or order being appealed. Levine’s thirty-day filing period expired on May 14. Levine’s notice of appeal, however, was not filed until May 16, 2007, outside of the thirty day window. In Bowles v. Russell, the Supreme Court made “clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Accordingly, we DISMISS Levine’s appeal, as its untimely filing deprives us of jurisdiction.

Levine v. Janosek, 308 F. App'x 527 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

308 F. App'x 527 (Levine v. Janosek) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related