Metro Publishing Group, Inc. v. Murphy

683 F. App'x 540
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided April 18, 2017·No. 16-2780·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this removed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Michael Williams seeks to appeal after the district court 1 dismissed his complaint and denied his motions for reconsideration. After careful review, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because Williams’s notice of appeal did not designate the order, judgment, or part thereof that he was appealing. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (notice of appeal must designate judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) (Rule 3 requirements are jurisdictional). We also deny as moot Williams’s pending motions. 2

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. We note that to the extent that Williams attempted to assert a state-law claim, that claim was dismissed without prejudice. See Hassett v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co:, 851 F.2d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 1988).

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

Metro Publishing Group, Inc. v. Murphy, 683 F. App'x 540 (8th Cir. 2017).

683 F. App'x 540 (Metro Publishing Group, Inc. v. Murphy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Barry
502 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Hassett v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co.
851 F.2d 1127 (Eighth Circuit, 1988)