AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff appealed against an order dismissing his cause of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court had previously granted summary judgment and dismissed the entire action against all Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (para 3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Union County, December 24, 2018: The court entered a final order of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court’s order of dismissal should not be regarded as a final disposition because it failed to dispose of all issues of law and fact to the fullest extent possible. The Plaintiff also disputed the finality of the order on grounds that the district court did not address the merits of the underlying claims or the Plaintiff’s attempts to challenge the validity of the internal grievance procedure. Additionally, the Plaintiff contended that his filing of various postjudgment submissions should alter the analysis regarding the appeal's timeliness (paras 3-5).
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court’s order of dismissal constitutes a final disposition.
• Whether the Plaintiff’s late filing of the notice of appeal can be excused based on the nature of postjudgment submissions or challenges to the internal grievance procedure.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to the Plaintiff's failure to file a notice of appeal within the required timeframe (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, and Judge Megan P. Duffy, unanimously concluded that the Plaintiff's appeal was not properly before them due to the late filing of the notice of appeal, more than seven months past the deadline. The Court disagreed with the Plaintiff's contention that the district court’s order was not a final disposition, citing precedents that an order granting summary judgment and dismissing an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a full and final disposition. The Court also found that the district court's failure to address the merits of the underlying claims or the Plaintiff’s challenges to the grievance procedure did not affect the finality of the order of dismissal. Furthermore, the Court noted that none of the Plaintiff’s postjudgment submissions met the criteria to extend the filing deadline for an appeal. The decision to dismiss was based on the mandatory precondition of timely filing for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction and the lack of any qualifying circumstances to toll the filing deadline (paras 1-6).