Opinion ID: 3021549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: timeliness and scope of the appeal

Text: We must first address which orders were timely appealed. There is no dispute that Salley timely appealed from the District Court judgment entered June 8, 2003. However, the Appellees argue that Salley’s pro se notice of appeal mailed on July 9, 2003, and docketed on July 14, is untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), thereby precluding from our review a number of issues raised in Salley’s brief. We do not have to decide whether Salley’s pro se notice of appeal is timely to review the District Court’s grants of summary judgment. Rather, we find that the counseled notice of appeal 2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 4 and associated documents sufficiently permits an inference that Salley intended to appeal from the District Court’s order entered on April 11, 2003. We construe the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) liberally. See Shea v. Smith, 966 F.2d 127, 129 (3d Cir. 1992). “[J]urisdiction vests over orders not specified in the notice of appeal if there is a connection between the specified and unspecified orders, the intention to appeal the unspecified order is apparent, the opposing party is not prejudiced and has a full opportunity to brief the issues.” Id. (citing a number of favorable opinions). Here, Salley’s counseled notice of appeal does not expressly waive an appeal from the April 11 order and Salley’s own pro se filings clarify his desire to appeal the order. Additionally, counsel’s civil information statement expressing an intent to challenge the District Court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to claim seven of the complaint highlights that we can infer an intent to appeal both of the District Court orders. Lastly, the Appellees cannot argue prejudice even though they do not address a majority of the issues in their briefs. They have been on notice that these claims were potentially appealable, yet instead of addressing the claims in the alternative, the Appellees chose to rely exclusively on a jurisdictional argument. Thus, we will review the District Court’s grant of the motions for summary judgment.3 3 We also note that upon further review of the record, it appears that Salley filed a notice of appeal in this Court, which we received on July 7, 2003. The notice of appeal is timely, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(d), and expresses a clear intent to appeal from the April 11 5