Case ID: f-appx_236/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrick E. MAHONEY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOKIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-14518.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 11, 2007.
    Wayne Lawrence Allen, Allen & Areadier, P.A., Melbourne, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    William K. Brumbach, Christopher C. Marquardt, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Patrick E. Mahoney, Sr. (“Mahoney”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nokia, Inc. (“Nokia”), in this Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) case.

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the ground that Mahoney was not an “eligible” employee at the time that he requested FMLA leave.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . In his brief on appeal, Mahoney attempts to challenge three additional orders of the district court: (1) the district court’s order denying Mahoney’s sur-reply motion; (2) the district court’s order giving effect to Mahoney's stipulation of dismissal; and (3) the district court’s order denying Mahoney's motion for a protective order. We conclude that we either lack jurisdiction to review any of these orders on the ground that they were not designated in Mahoney’s notice of appeal or, they are otherwise without merit.
     
      
      . Although this was not the basis of the district court’s grant of summary judgment, ”[t]his court may affirm the district court where the judgment entered is correct on any legal ground regardless of the grounds addressed, adopted or rejected by the district court.” Bonanni Ship Supply, Inc. v. United States, 959 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir.1992).