Court Opinion

ID: 9398674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 20:01:46.40986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.410309
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11283    Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 05/31/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11283
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DEVANTE ORR,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       TEMPLE BETH-EL,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00442-AMM
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11283     Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 05/31/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11283

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. According to his notice of appeal, Devante Orr appeals from
       the district court’s “discovery” order entered on April 14, 2023. The
       district court did not issue any orders on that day. Before Orr ﬁled
       his notice of appeal, the district court issued only three orders,
       which set a brieﬁng schedule on the defendant’s motion to dismiss,
       notiﬁed the parties of their duties under Federal Rule of Civil Pro-
       cedure 26, and required the parties to elect whether to consent to
       a magistrate judge exercising dispositive jurisdiction. To the extent
       that Orr intended to appeal any of those orders, none of them are
       ﬁnal or immediately appealable.
               First, those orders are not ﬁnal because they did not end the
       litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v.
       Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a ﬁnal or-
       der ends litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to
       do but execute its judgment). Second, there is no indication that
       delaying review of those orders “would imperil a substantial public
       interest or some particular value of a high order” such that they are
       appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Mohawk Indus.,
       Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107 (2009). Third, those orders did
       not dispose of any claims or parties, so they could not have been
       certiﬁed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 54(b); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246
USCA11 Case: 23-11283      Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 05/31/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-11283               Opinion of the Court                         3

       (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all
       claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable
       absent certiﬁcation pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Further, a ﬁnal order
       from the district court ending the litigation on the merits would
       not cure the premature notice of appeal. See Robinson v. Tanner,
       798 F.2d 1378, 1383-85 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that a subse-
       quent ﬁnal judgment does not cure a premature notice of appeal
       ﬁled from an order that is not immediately appealable).
             All pending motions are denied as moot. No petition for re-
       hearing may be ﬁled unless it complies with the timing and other
       requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.