Devante Orr v. Temple Beth-El

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11283
Before R OSENBAUM, G RANT , and B RASHER, 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: 2 of 3

-- 2 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.
USCA11 Case: 23-11283 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --