Opinion ID: 4567334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lewis’s Arguments

Text: Lewis raises several other arguments unrelated to the grounds for dismissal. First, he asserts that he was unfairly prejudiced by certain statements that the judge and defendants’ counsel made to the jury during the preliminary jury instructions and defendants’ opening statement. These arguments fail because Lewis’s case was dismissed before the jury returned a verdict; the statements could not have had a prejudicial effect on the jury. He also argues that the District Court erred in denying his recusal motion and motion in limine concerning his prior convictions. We do not have jurisdiction to review these orders because, with exceptions inapplicable here, when a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), interlocutory orders do not merge with the final judgment for purposes of appealability. Shannon v. Gen. Elec. Co., 186 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 1999) (allowing “a party who was disappointed by an interlocutory ruling [to] obtain an appeal of that ruling by simply refusing to prosecute his or her lawsuit” would “reward [that] party for dilatory and bad faith tactics” in contravention of the purpose of Rule 41(b) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Finally, Lewis argues that we erred in initially dismissing this appeal and denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. Construing these arguments as a motion for reconsideration of those rulings, we deny the motion so construed as moot in light of our subsequent reinstatement of his appeal. See United States v. Mercurris, 192 F.3d 290, 293 (2d Cir. 1999) (A case or issue becomes moot when a party no longer has “an actual injury which is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). 3 We have reviewed the remainder of Lewis’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court, and we DENY Lewis’s motion for reconsideration of our prior rulings as moot. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 4