Samuel Ghee, IV v. Flix North America, Inc., et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13655
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
SAMUEL GHEE, IV,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FLIX NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
GREYHOUND LINES INC,
GEORGE MOORE,
ISSAC SANCHEZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13655 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13655
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 4:23-cv-00070-CDL
____________________
Before J ORDAN, BRANCH , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record, we find that we lack jurisdiction
over this appeal.
Samuel Ghee, IV appeals from the district court’s October 5,
2023 order that granted Flix North America, Inc.’s and Greyhound
Lines, Inc.’s motions to dismiss, denied Ghee’s motion to strike,
and denied in part Ghee’s motion to recover the costs of service of
process. 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).
Ghee’s claims against defendants Moore and Sanchez 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,
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
USCA11 Case: 23-13655 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-13655 Opinion of the Court 3
54(b)). Nor is the district court’s October 5, 2023 order effectively
unreviewable on appeal from a final order resolving the case on the
merits. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir.
2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation
may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia,
is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”); Doe
No. I v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1004 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that
interlocutory discovery orders are generally not immediately ap-
pealable).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack
of jurisdiction. 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.
USCA11 Case: 23-13655 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --