
    Deanna MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALES GROUP USA, INC., Eric Domel, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-4575-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 24, 2010.
    Deanna Morris, New York, N.Y., pro se.
    Glen H. Parker, Hoey, King, Toker & Epstein, New York, N.Y., for Appellees.
    PRESENT: WALKER, CHESTER J. STRAUB and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Deanna Morris, pro se, appeals a post-judgment order denying her motion for reconsideration of the decision below granting summary judgment for defendants. The present appeal represents plaintiffs second attempt to appeal the judgment dismissing her complaint. Previously, a panel of this Court dismissed plaintiffs first appeal as untimely. Morris v. Ales Group USA, Inc., No. 07-3849-cv (2d Cir. Feb 28, 2008). (Judgment was entered below on July 3, 2007, but plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal until August 13, 2007. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1).) After her first appeal was dismissed, plaintiff moved for reconsideration in the district court, was denied, and moved for reconsideration of the denial. Plaintiff now seeks to appeal the denial of her first post-appeal motion for reconsideration. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the case.

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). In a civil case, an appellant must generally file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the order being appealed. Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1). Here, the order plaintiff seeks to appeal — the district court’s denial of plaintiffs first motion for reconsideration — was entered on July 22, 2008. Plaintiffs notice of appeal was filed on August 22, 2008, one day late. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Further, plaintiffs second Rule 60 motion was not timely filed for purposes of tolling the time to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The mere service of plaintiffs second motion was insufficient for tolling purposes. See Camacho v. City of Yonkers, 236 F.3d 112, 115 (2d Cir.2000); Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. American Mktg. Enters., Inc., 192 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir.1999).

During oral argument, plaintiff denied that her initial appeal was untimely, claiming that the filing dates contained on the district court’s docket sheet are inaccurate due to the district court’s mishandling of her submissions. On our invitation, plaintiff subsequently submitted over 500 pages of records ostensibly showing that the filing dates on the docket sheet were erroneous. We have carefully reviewed plaintiffs submissions, and find nothing to substantiate her allegations.

Although a district court may, in certain circumstances, extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, a court of appeals may not. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c); Fed. R.App. P. 26(b)(1). Accordingly, because the district court has denied plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to appeal, this appeal must be, and therefore is, DISMISSED. 
      
      . Plaintiff's second motion for reconsideration is not within the ambit of this appeal, since the notice of appeal indicates that the second motion was still pending at the time of the appeal, thus negating any inference that plaintiff intended to appeal that order.
     