Court Opinion

ID: 9890500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 14:00:34.296168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.376762
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12901       Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 10/13/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                      [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                                ____________________

                                     No. 23-12901
                                Non-Argument Calendar
                                ____________________

       CHARLES WEINACKER,
                                                         Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       AARON SHADDY,
       an individual, et al.,

                                                                Defendants,

       PETFRIENDLY, INC.,
       PET FRIENDLY DIRECT, LLC,
       Nebraska limited liability corporations,
USCA11 Case: 23-12901      Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 10/13/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12901

                                 Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees,

       WWW.PETFRIENDLYDIRECT.COM,
       a.k.a. www.petfriendlybox.com,

                                                        Defendant-Appellee.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00028-TFM-MU
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Charles Weinacker, pro se, appeals the district court’s August
       4, 2023 order that dismissed, in whole or in part, four of the eight
       counts in Weinacker’s second amended complaint and allowed the
       remaining counts to proceed. We lack jurisdiction over this appeal
       because the August 4 order was not final or otherwise appealable.
       See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d
       1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000). Because the August 4 order expressly
       allowed several of Weinacker’s claims to proceed, and those claims
       remain pending, that order is not a final or otherwise appealable
USCA11 Case: 23-12901     Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 10/13/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       23-12901              Opinion of the Court                       3

       decision. See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244,
       1245-46 (11th Cir. 2012).
              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.