Court Opinion

ID: 9410758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 14:00:54.028457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.284546
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11965     Document: 8-1      Date Filed: 07/24/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                 No. 23-11965
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

      DEANDRE ARNOLD,
      on behalf of Tymya Arnold,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      CITY OF HAMPTON,
      WAYNE JERNIGAN,
      sued in his oﬃcial and individual capacity,
      OTANYA CLARKE,
      in her individual and oﬃcial capacity,
      STACY COLEY,
      sued in her oﬃcial and individual capacity,
      DERRICK AUSTIN,
USCA11 Case: 23-11965      Document: 8-1      Date Filed: 07/24/2023    Page: 2 of 3

      2                       Opinion of the Court                 23-11965

      in his oﬃcial and individual capacity, et al.,

                                                       Defendants-Appellees,

      KIM STEPHENS,
      sued in her oﬃcial and individual capacity, et al.,

                                                                Defendants.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-04970-SEG
                          ____________________

      Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. Deandre Arnold appeals from district court orders dismissing
      various defendants and denying his motion to alter or amend part
      of the judgment. Those orders are not ﬁnal and appealable, how-
      ever, because they 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
USCA11 Case: 23-11965     Document: 8-1      Date Filed: 07/24/2023     Page: 3 of 3

      23-11965               Opinion of the Court                         3

      litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
      execute its judgment).
              Arnold’s claims against defendant Gloria Banister remain
      pending before the district court, and the district court did not cer-
      tify any of its orders for immediate review under Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant,
      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 March 16, 2023, May 16,
      2023, and June 12, 2023 orders that Arnold appears to be challeng-
      ing are 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 con-
      clude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doc-
      trine if it, inter alia, is “eﬀectively unreviewable on appeal from a
      ﬁnal judgment”).
              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.