Opinion ID: 2804396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motions to Modify and for an Extension

Text: In his brief, Schell argued the district court erred in denying two motions he filed, a motion to modify the scheduling order and a motion for an extension of time to respond to Bluebird’s motion for summary judgment. We lack jurisdiction to consider these arguments. Schell’s notice of appeal indicated he was appealing from the district court’s final order, its grant of summary judgment, and did not indicate his intent to appeal earlier orders. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 requires that the notice of appeal specify, among other things, “the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). “Although we traditionally construe notices of appeal liberally . . . an intent to appeal the judgment in question must be apparent and there must be no prejudice to the adverse party.” Berdella v. Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 207 (8th Cir. 1992). If an appellant fails to provide proper notice of his intent to appeal an order or judgment, we lack jurisdiction to review it. Trustees of Electricians’ Salary Deferral Plan v. Wright, 688 F.3d 922, 925 n.2 (8th Cir. 2012). In this case, Schell’s intent to appeal the district court’s earlier orders was not apparent. Schell points to a statement of issues he filed after the time period for appeal had passed, which indicated his intent to appeal the denial of the motion to modify the scheduling order, and asks us to treat it as an appeal information form for the purposes of curing his deficient notice of appeal. See Hallquist v. United Home Loans, Inc., 715 F.3d 1040, 1045 (8th Cir. 2013) (“‘[E]ven when the notice of appeal is deficient, jurisdiction may be established by a properly filed appeal information form . . . which indicates the appellant’s intent to appeal a particular order.’” (quoting USCOC of Greater Mo. v. City of Ferguson, Mo., 583 F.3d 1035, 1040 (8th Cir. 2009))). Even if we were to do so, it would not help Schell in this case, as he filed his statement of issues after the time period for appeal had elapsed. See Wright, 688 F.3d at 925 n.2 (“In order for Form A [the appeal information form] to be considered -6- part of the notice of appeal, it must be filed within the time constraints for the notice of appeal.”). As Schell did not give proper notice of his intent to appeal these orders, we lack jurisdiction to review them.