Ofoedu v. St. Francis Hosp. & Med. Ctr., (2nd Cir. 2008)
Linked as:
Text
06-5546-cv
Ofoedu v. St. Francis Hosp. & Med. Ctr.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUM M ARY
ORDERS FILED A FTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S
LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER
PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUM M ARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A
CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION M UST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR
BE ACCOM PANIED BY THE NOTATION: "(SUM M ARY ORDER)." A PARTY CITING A SUM M ARY
O RDER M UST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUM M ARY ORDER TOGETHER W ITH THE PAPER IN
W HICH THE SUM M ARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
UNLESS THE SUM M ARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRO NIC D ATABASE W HICH IS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE W ITHOUT PAYM ENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://W W W .CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY
OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, TH E C ITATION M UST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT
DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUM BER OF THE CASE IN W HICH THE ORDER W AS ENTERED.
At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
the 2nd day of July, two thousand and eight.
PRESENT:
HON. PIERRE N. LEVAL,
HON. GUIDO CALABRESI,
HON. ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
Circuit Judges.
ERNEST AFAM OFOEDU,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 06-5546-cv
ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER,
CATHERINE SZENCZY and CAROL SCHUSTER,
Defendants-Appellees.
FOR APPELLANT: Anthony C. Emengo, Williamsburg, N.Y.
FOR APPELLEES: James F. Shea, Jackson Lewis LLP, Hartford, Conn.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, J.), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED IN PART, and that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Ernest Ofoedu appeals (1) a judgment entered on September 14, 2006 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, J.), which dismissed Ofoedu's Title VII and § 1981 claims and awarded summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees; and (2) a November 6, 2006 decision of the district court, granting plaintiff's motion for reconsideration but adhering to the prior decision. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts of the case and its procedural history.
Ofoedu failed to file a timely notice of appeal with respect to the district court's original award of summary judgment, and his motion for reconsideration was filed six minutes too late to toll that deadline pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Accordingly, to the extent that Ofoedu's brief challenges the district court's initial decision, we have no jurisdiction to consider his arguments. Sorensen v. City of New York, 413 F.3d 292, 295 (2d Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 232-33 (2d Cir. 2008) (explaining that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), which governs the time to appeal in a civil case, is jurisdictional). It matters not whether the late filing was due to the negligence of counsel, or to ordinary misadventure. We note, in passing, that Ofoedu's arguments with respect to the initial award of summary judgment appear to lack merit.
Ofoedu did submit a timely notice of appeal from the district court's ruling on the motion for reconsideration. We review that decision for abuse of discretion. Devlin v. Transp. Comm'ns Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 131-32 (2d Cir. 1999). We find no abuse of discretion in Judge Dorsey's adherence to his previous conclusion on the merits of the case. In particular, the district court acted well within its discretion when it found that its error with respect to Ofoedu's termination date did not affect the ultimate result. Judge Dorsey properly relied on his prior determination that Ofoedu failed to adduce any evidence that his dismissal was inspired by a retaliatory motive.
The appeal is DISMISSED IN PART, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
For the Court, CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court by:
Sponsored links
