Court Opinion

ID: 9406383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 20:00:59.384197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:29.400266
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11611   Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 06/30/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
               United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-11611
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      JAMES S. MARCELIN,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
      et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

      MR. BILLY,
      oﬃcer,
      MR. DANIELS,
      oﬃcer,
      MR. CUNNINGHAM,
USCA11 Case: 23-11611     Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 06/30/2023     Page: 2 of 3

      2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11611

      oﬃcer,

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00228-BJD-PDB
                          ____________________

      Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
             This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. James Marcelin appeals from the district court’s April 6, 2023
      order dismissing his claims against defendant Cunningham. That
      order is not ﬁnal and appealable, however, because it did not end
      the litigation on the merits in the district court.                See
      28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986
      (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a ﬁnal order ends the litigation on the
      merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judg-
      ment).
              Marcelin’s claims against defendants Billy and Daniels re-
       main pending before the district court, and the district court did
       not certify its order for immediate review under Federal Rule of
       Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant,
USCA11 Case: 23-11611     Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 06/30/2023     Page: 3 of 3

      23-11611               Opinion of the Court                         3

      689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that dis-
      poses of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not
      immediately appealable absent certiﬁcation pursuant to Rule
      54(b)). Additionally, the district court’s April 6, 2023 order is not
      eﬀectively unreviewable on appeal from a ﬁnal order resolving the
      case on the merits. Plaintiﬀ A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252–53 (11th
      Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the liti-
      gation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it,
      inter alia, is “eﬀectively unreviewable on appeal from a ﬁnal judg-
      ment”).
             No petition for rehearing may be ﬁled unless it complies
      with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all
      other applicable rules.