[brief] **PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL IS BARRED BY THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE BECAUSE HE FAILED TO APPEAL THE COURT’S ORDERS AND RULINGS DATED MARCH 4, 2022. **  Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal does not designate the Court’s Orders and Rulings dated March 4, 2022 – which were dispositive of a majority of the claims set forth in the Verified Complaint – and therefore, Plaintiff is barred by the law of the case doctrine from now arguing those issues on appeal.  (Pa31, Pa117, Pa225).  Plaintiff attempts to improperly backdoor these now unappealable decisions through later Court Orders that merely reference the issues disposed of by way of the March 4, 2022, Orders and Rulings.  However, these March 4, 2022, Orders and Rulings of the trial court became the law of the case upon the entry of final judgment, and Plaintiff was required to designate them in his Notice of Appeal for them to be considered.  See W.H. Indus., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda, 397 N.J. Super. 455, 458-59 (App. Div. 2008) (reviewing only the order specifically designated in the notice of appeal).  “[T]he ‘law of the case’ rule ordinarily precludes a court from re-examining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher appellate court, in the same case. ”  State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266, 276 (2015) (quoting State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 208 (1985) (O’Hern, J., dissenting)).  It is a non-binding rule intended to “prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue. ”  Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 539 (2011).  An interlocutory order may become the law of the case when final judgment is entered, and it is no longer subject to reconsideration.  Id.  In this matter, the trial court disposed of many issues in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint at a hearing on March 4, 2022, which was convened to address Plaintiff’s request for temporary restraints, as well as to decide a separate Motion to Enforce Litigant’s Rights filed on behalf of the Plaintiff.  (Pa30).  Specifically, the court ruled that Count One of the Verified Complaint was moot because the Borough held a curative plenary Reorganization Meeting (Pa233); the court ruled that every allegation in the Verified Complaint involving official action that occurred beyond 45 days prior to filing – including all of Count Three – failed to state a claim because it was filed out of time (Pa235); and the court denied Plaintiff’s request in the Verified Complaint for additional time to file an action in lieu of prerogative writs because “the notice requirement would weigh heavily in the Borough’s favor. ”  (Pa235).  These issues were conclusively decided at the March 4, 2022, hearing, and the rulings were referenced in the September 9, 2022, Order and Statement of Reasons that are under appeal.  (Pa86, 1T at 17:9 – 18:2).  Once final judgment was entered, the March 4, 2022, Orders and Rulings were no longer interlocutory, and they became the law of the case.  In order to challenge these decisions of the trial court, Plaintiff was required to designate them in his Notice of Appeal, which he failed to do.  (Pa117).  Plaintiff cannot appeal these same rulings under the guise that they were merely mentioned in a later Order and Statement of Reasons.  For these reasons, the Court should not consider on appeal any of the March 4, 2022, Orders or Rulings.