10-4464-cv
Lessambo v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.P.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND 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 THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 21st day of December, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 ____________________________________________________________
13
14 Felix I. Lessambo,
15 Plaintiff-Appellant,
16
17 -v.- 10-4464-cv
18
19 PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.P.; Suchi
20 Lee; Durga Malampalli; Thomas Moore;
21 Thomas Mullen; Puneet Arora,
22 Defendants-Appellees,
23
24 Oscar M.Q. Teunissen; Dimittri
25 Semenov; Thomas Swoboda; Thomas
26 Groenen; Lowell Huth; Elena Richards;
27 Michelle Yen McGrady,
28 Defendants.
29 ___________________________________________________________
1
2 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Felix I. Lessambo, pro se, Mount
3 Vernon, NY.
4
5 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Stephen L. Sheinfeld, William M.
6 Sunkel, Winston & Strawn LLP,
7 New York, NY.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
10 AND DECREED that the District Court judgment is AFFIRMED.
11
12 Plaintiff-Appellant Felix I. Lessambo, pro se, appeals
13 from the September 29, 2010 judgment of the United States
14 District Court for the Southern District of New York
15 (Pauley, J.) dismissing the complaint on summary judgment.
16 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
17 and the procedural history of the case.
18 [1] This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the District
19 Court’s June 2009 decision granting the motion for partial
20 judgment on the pleadings because that decision was not
21 designated in Lessambo’s notice of appeal, as required by
22 Rule 3(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure.
23 See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 256 (2d Cir.
24 1995) (holding that, when a notice of appeal specified one
25 district court order while failing to reference another, an
26 appeal from the unmentioned order cannot be considered).
27 Therefore, insofar as Lessambo challenges the District
-2-
1 Court’s June 2009 decision, the appeal is dismissed for lack
2 of subject-matter jurisdiction.
3 [2] As to Lessambo’s remaining contentions, we affirm for
4 substantially the same reasons stated in the District
5 Court’s thorough opinion.
6
7 Finding no merit in Lessambo’s remaining arguments, we
8 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court, and
9 DISMISS the portion of the appeal for which we lack
10 jurisdiction.
11
12
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
-3-