SUMMARY ORDER

Cerious McCray, pro se, appeals from the district court’s order granting a motion to enforce an oral settlement agreement. McCray filed a 42 U.S.C, § 1983 complaint arguing his constitutional rights were violated during two traffic stops. Following the dismissal of several defendants, judgment was entered after he and the remaining defendants orally agreed to settle. Subsequently, however, he requested additional monetary relief, and the defendants moved to enforce the settlement. The court ruled McCray was bound by the oral settlement. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

As an initial matter, McCray did not timely appeal from the October 2015 judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of his claims. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Although McCray timely appealed the denial of his motion for an extension of time, he has not challenged that denial in his brief and has abandoned that issue. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995).

McCray’s notice of appeal from the order to enforce the agreement was premature but ripened into a valid notice of *76 appeal when the settlement was so-ordered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2); Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655, 664 n.6 (2d Cir. 2012). Consequently, we have jurisdiction to review 'the order to enforce the settlement agreement.

We review decisions on whether a settlement is binding de novo and factual findings, including whether a settlement agreement existed and the parties assented to it, for clear error. Powell v. Omnicom, 497 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2007); Ciaramella v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 131 F.3d 320, 322 (2d Cir. 1997). A “voluntary, clear, explicit, and unqualified stipulation of dismissal entered into by the parties in court and on the record is enforceable even if the agreement is never reduced to writing, signed, or filed.” Role v. Eureka Lodge No. 434, 402 F.3d 314, 318 (2d Cir. 2005).

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly ruled that the parties intended to be bound by the oral agreement reached in open court. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough December 3, 2015, order. Additionally, we conclude that the court had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement because it incorporated the terms of the agreement in its dismissal of McCray’s claims. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).

We have considered all of McCray’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court and DISMISS the appeal from the October 20, 2015, judgment.