DocketNumber: No. 00-9051
Citation Numbers: 16 F. App'x 43
Filed Date: 6/12/2001
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
SUMMARY ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this appeal be and it hereby is DISMISSED.
Kurian C. Kurian, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered on January 6, 2000, dismissing his claims of employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and his claims of due process violations in relation to the notice he received of proceedings concerning his termination. Kurian also appeals from a denial on May 25, 2000,
The District Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the extension, and we do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. As we have explained, “the timely filing of a motion under Rule 59(e) is jurisdictional prerequisite to tolling the time to file a notice of appeal from a final judgment.” Wight v. Bankamerica Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Because appellant did not timely file his first Rule 59(e) motion — or any of those that followed — the thirty-day period for filing an appeal was not tolled.
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.
. The docket sheet does not reflect entry of the order denying his motion.
. Rule 59(e) provides that "[a]ny motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.”