Case Information
*1 ‐ ‐ cv Riverside Builders, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY IS PERMITTED AND GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At stated term United States Appeals Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, City th day December, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI,
RAYMOND LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges
EDWARD R. KORMAN, Judge .*
FRANK HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff ‐ Appellant No. ‐ cv * Edward Korman, Eastern sitting designation. *2 RIVERSIDE BUILDERS, INC., ESTEBAN
ESPINOZA,
Defendants Appellees
FEDERICO,
Defendant FOR APPELLANT: Frank Hernandez, pro se New NY. APPELLEES: Robert Jay Gumenick, Robert J. Gumenick, P.C., NY. Appeal from orders District Southern York (Andrew Peck, Magistrate
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED and Court’s order vacate Frank Hernandez, pro se, appeals August order dismissal its denying assume familiarity with facts record prior proceedings, *3 we refer as necessary to explain our decision to dismiss in affirm in part.
We dismiss the appeal of to the extent that Hernandez attempts to challenge the consent of May 2017 appeal is untimely to challenge that order. Fed. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (7)(A); see also Bowles v. Russell, U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing a notice a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). Moreover, unless a party unequivocally reserves the right to appeal, which Hernandez did do, “[a]ppeal a judgment . . unavailable on ground that the deemed to waived objections to matters within scope judgment.” LaForest Honeywell Int’l (2d Cir. otherwise construe appeal, see Harris Miller, 2016), we timely extent challenges endorsement between parties. construe denial pursuant Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b), we *4 review for abuse discretion. See Manning N.Y. Univ., identify no abuse discretion here. Even when construed, neither nor his briefs point legal or factual basis vacating settlement, such violation settlement or misconduct by defendants. alleges there are continuing consequences arising termination was subject original complaint. Those consequences are covered are subject appeal. LaForest, 73. considered remaining they without merit. For foregoing reasons, jurisdiction, COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk