Case Name: Aniello GRIMALDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vincent PROMUTO, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-18
Citations: 646 F. App'x 37
Docket Number: No. 15-1680
Parties: Aniello GRIMALDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vincent PROMUTO, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 37–38

Head Matter:
Aniello GRIMALDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vincent PROMUTO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-1680.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 18, 2016.
Ariello Grimaldi, pro se, Bronx, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Joy K. Mele, O’Dwyer & Bernstein, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Aniello Grimaldi, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review the denial of a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal for abuse of discretion. Goode v. Winkler, 252 F.3d 242, 245 (2d Cir.2001). Here, the district court correctly determined that Grimaldi's motion for an extension was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the expiration of the time to file a notice of appeal. Furthermore, .Grimal-di's motion was also untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) because it was filed more than 180 days after the entry of judgment. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.