Michal SWIATKOWSKI, Debtor-Appellant, v. CITIMORTGAGE INC., Creditor-Appellee, 478 F. App'x 704

SUMMARY ORDER Debtor-appellant Michal Swiatkowski, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s September 23, 2011, judgment, entered pursuant to its memorandum and order dated September 19, 2011, granting the motion of creditor-appellee Citimort-gage, Inc. to dismiss Swiatkowski’s appeal of an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York (Grossman, /.). The district court held that the appeal was untimely, and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. On an appeal of a district court’s determination of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, we review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. Vogel Van & Storage, Inc. v. Navistar Fin. Corp. (In re Vogel Van & Storage, Inc.), 59 F.3d 9, 11 (2d Cir.1995). We have conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles.

For substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum and order, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Swiatkowski’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order for lack of jurisdiction because it was untimely- The 14-day time limit prescribed by Rule 8002(

a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for filing an appeal from a judgment or order of the bankruptcy court “is jurisdictional, and ... in the absence of a timely notice of appeal in the district court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal, regardless of whether the appellant can demonstrate ‘excusable neglect.’ ” Siemon v. Emigrant Savings Bank (In re Siemon), 421 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir.2005) (per cu-riam). Here, the bankruptcy court order from which Swiatkowski appealed was entered on October 20, 2010.

Therefore, Swiat-kowski’s notice of appeal, filed on November 16, 2010, was untimely by 13 days. Moreover, because the order from which Swiatkowski appealed granted relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, he could not, and, in any event, did not, request from the bankruptcy court an extension of time in which to file the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(c)(1)(A) (allowing for extension of time to file notice of appeal except where, inter alia, the bankruptcy court’s judgment grants relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362).

Therefore, Swiat-kowski’s notice of appeal was untimely, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his appeal. We have considered Swiatkowski’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.