Opinion ID: 1462737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Contrary to Henneman's assertions, Rolon's appeal of the district court's dismissal of the claim against him was timely. The date triggering the start of Rolon's thirty days to file a notice of appeal ran from the day, August 4, 2006, the district court entered its final judgment disposing of the entire casewhen it entered Moskowitz's judgment on the pleadings. See Citizens Accord, Inc. v. Town of Rochester, 235 F.3d 126, 128 (2d Cir.2000) (holding that a final judgment is one that conclusively determines the pending claims of all parties to the litigation, unless the district court directs entry of a final judgment as to the dismissed claims or parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)). Rolon filed this appeal twelve days, after the final judgment was entered, and it is thus timely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1).