UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NICOLE M. RICE, Plaintiff, 25-CV-4796 (LTS) -against- ORDER NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed this action pro se. By order dated August 12, 2025, the Court dismissed this action.1 (ECF 4.) The Clerk of Court entered judgment on August 15, 2025. (ECF 5.) On August 25, 2025, the Court received Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal (ECF 6) and a notice of appeal (ECF 7). As set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as unnecessary. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is denied as unnecessary. Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a notice of appeal in a civil case to be filed within 30 days of entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Judgment was entered on August 15, 2025, and Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was received ten days later, on August 25, 2025. Because the appeal is timely, the Court denies

1 The Court dismissed this action because Plaintiff did not pay the fees or ask that the fees be waived. Plaintiff contends in her motion for an extension of time that she emailed her fee waiver request on July 9, 2025. The docket sheet for Plaintiff’s case, however, shows that the request was never docketed. Plaintiff is advised that the Clerk’s Office requires “documents [to] be attached to [a party’s] email in PDF format, no larger than 15 megabytes . . . [and that] [d]ocuments that do not conform to these requirements will not be docketed.” Representing Yourself in Federal Court (Pro Se), Email Instructions, https://nysd.uscourts.gov/prose. “Parties may call (212) 805-0175 to check on the status of their filing after 48 hours of submitting.” Id. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to appeal as unnecessary. (ECF 6.) The Court directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion on the docket. The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an

appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge