Opinion ID: 3061733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: As an initial matter, we review de novo questions concerning our subject-matter jurisdiction. Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204 (11th Cir. 2006). “The general rule in this circuit is that an appellate court has jurisdiction to review only those judgments, orders or portions thereof which are specified in an appellant’s notice of appeal.” Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1528 (11th Cir. 1987); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). But we will liberally construe a notice of appeal when “(1) unnoticed claims or issues are inextricably intertwined with noticed ones and (2) the adverse party is not prejudiced.” Hill v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). Specifically, we have held that a pro se notice of appeal from an order on a tolling post-judgment motion must be construed as an appeal from the original judgment also, where it is clear that the appellant intended to appeal from 4 the underlying judgment. Kicklighter v. Nails By Jannee, Inc., 616 F.2d 734, 738 n.1 (5th Cir. 1980).1 Here, although Walton-Horton’s notice of appeal only referenced the denial of her tolling motion to alter or amend judgment, it is clear that Walton-Horton intended to challenge the grant of summary judgment. Moreover, there is no indication that Walton-Horton’s limited notice of appeal prejudiced or misled Hyundai. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over the underlying order granting summary judgment.