◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1870 75 It is Ordered and Adjudged that the Court finds as a matter of law that the plaintiffs and each of them have failed to sustain their burden of proof on the issues of each and every count remaining in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, accordingly the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict in favor of each and every defendant and against each and every plaintiff is granted and judgment is entered herein together with costs against each and every plaintiff and in favor of each and every defendant. On June 22, 1977 plaintiffs, including Brewer, filed a notice of appeal from the orders of April 15, 1977 and June 20, 1977. It is apparent from this sequence of events that the notice of appeal filed June 22, 1977 did not encompass the dismissal of Counts 15, 16. and 17 which occurred on July 1, 1977. No notice of appeal was filed with respect to these specific counts. Brewer’s argument is that this defect in the notice of appeal should not be fatal because an intent to appeal the district court’s ruling regarding her common law counts can be implied. The argument is unpersuasive. Although courts generally have held that an error in designating the judgment appealed from is not per se fatal if an intent to appeal from a specific judgment can be inferred, Daily Mirror, Inc. »v. New York News, Inc., 588 F.2d 58, 56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 862 (1976), that rule has no application here. Because of the severance, the judgment for the defen- dants based on the directed verdicts did not affect the viability of Brewer’s common law counts. Therefore no on ia of inclusion in the only notice of appeal can be made. Accordingly, the dismissal of the Brewer common law counts is not properly before us. X. ATTORNEYS’ FEES Plaintiffs seek, in addition to a reversal of the district court judgments and a remand for a new trial, an award of attorneys’ fees for “their efforts to date.” The request is based on the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act