ANTONIO APONTE-TORRES ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 05-1534
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
The opinion of this Court issued on April 14, 2006 is corrected as follows:
Starting at page 15, line 21, and going through page 16, line 12, delete the following text:
notice of appeal refers only to the district court‘s order of dismissal, entered February 14, 2005. It makes no mention of the separate order staying discovery, entered December 1, 2004.
That is game, set, and match. By rule, a notice of appeal must specify the particular order to which the appeal is addressed. See
Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (mandating that a notice of appeal “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed“). Failure to identify a given order undermines an appellant‘s ability to dispute that order in the court of appeals. See, e.g., Shelby v. Superformance Int‘l, Inc., 435 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2006); Kotler v. Am. Tobacco Co., 981 F.2d 7, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1992). The plaintiffs offer no persuasive reason why the denominate-or-waive rule should not be enforced in this instance.We add, moreover, that even if this assignment of error were preserved, it would fail. The plaintiffs’
The resulting sentence should begin “The plaintiffs’ attack”