Fernando BERMUDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Michael Lentini, William Fitzpatrick, Daniel Massanova, John Mulalley, Baker, (First name unknown), Mulcahy, (First name unknown), Various John Does, Who are or were offices of the New York City Police Department, individually & in their official capacity, Various Jane Does, Who are or were Offices of the New York City Police Department, individually, Defendants-Appellees, Robert M. Morgenthau, individually & in his official capacity as former District Attorney of New York County, Nancy Ryan, individually & in her official capacity as Assistant Attorneys of New York County, James Rodriguez, individually & in his official capacity as Assistant Attorneys of New York County, Robin McCabe, individually & in their official capacity as Assistant Attorneys of New York County, Mary C. Farrington, individually & in their official capacity, Hilary Hassler, individually & in their official capacity as Assistant Attorneys of New York County, Herculano Izquierdo, individually & in their official capacity as Assistant Attorneys of New York County, Defendants, 599 F. App'x 26

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs challenges to the district court’s order issued on September 29, 2012, granting defendant Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss, are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(

B) provides that a notice of appeal ‘must ... designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.’ This requirement is ‘jurisdictional in nature.’ ” Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servcs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg, L.P., 756 F.3d 73, 93 (2d Cir.2014) (quoting Gonzalez v. Thaler, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 641, 652, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012)). This court’s jurisdiction to' review an order of the district court “is limited by the wording of the notice” of appeal. New Phone Co., Inc. v.

City of New York, 498 F.3d 127, 130 (2d Cir.2007). “While ‘we construe notices of appeal liberally, taking the parties’ intentions into account,’” Swatch Grp., 756 F.3d at 93 (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 256 (2d Cir.1995)), “jurisdiction ... depends on whether the intent to appeal from that decision is clear on the face of, or can be inferred from, the notice[ ] of appeal,” New Phone Co., 498 F.3d at 131. Where the intent to appeal cannot be inferred from the notice of appeal or its accompanying documents, the court will lack jurisdiction over the challenged order.

Id. at 130 (citing Shrader, 70 F.3d at 256); cf. Mir v. Shah, 569 Fed.Appx. 48, 49 n. 2 (2d Cir.2014) (summary order) (“[Although Mir’s notice of appeal designates only the order denying reconsideration, his supporting papers attached to his notice address the. district court’s entire dismissal. Construing his notice of appeal liberally, we conclude that Mir intended to appeal from both orders.”).

Although plaintiff argues in his opening brief that the September 29, 2012 order dismissing the claims against defendant Rodriguez was improper, he failed to identify that order in his notice of appeal or any of the accompanying paperwork. The notice identifies, as the order being appealed from, only “the Order of the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, entered on March 28, 2014, that granted Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment.” Notice of Appeal, A1681. Because we cannot infer from the notice or its accompanying papers that the September 29, 2012 order was intended to be challenged on appeal, “we are ‘bar[red] from considering’ an appellate challenge to that order.” Quanta Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v.

Investors Capital Corp., 403 Fed.Appx. 530, 532 (2d Cir.2010) (summary order) (quoting Shrader, 70 F.3d at 256); In re Bugnacki 528 Fed.Appx. 30, 32 (2d Cir.2013) (summary order) (“The notice’s lack of reference or even allusion to the district court ruling Bugnacki seeks to challenge means her appeal from that ruling cannot proceed.”); see also Rosendale v. Mahoney, 496 Fed.Appx. 120, 121 (2d Cir.2012) (summary order); Candelaria v. Baker, 464 Fed.Appx. 21, 22 (2d Cir.2012) (summary order); Austin v. Fischer, 453 Fed.Appx. 80, 82 (2d Cir.2011) (summary order).

We find the parties’ remaining arguments related to the jurisdictional question we address here to be without merit. The remaining issues related to plaintiffs challenge to the district court’s March 28, 2014 order, granting

summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, will be resolved by a separate opinion to issue in due course. Accordingly, we DISMISS that portion of plaintiffs appeal challenging the order of the district court issued on September 29, 2012.