Derry Grier v. U.S. Bank Trust N.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: August 7, 2024
• Docket: 24-11381
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-11381 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11381 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

In re: DERRY B. GRIER, Debtor. ___________________________________________________ ____________ DERRY B. GRIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, KARAN EDWARD SAFIR, Chapter 13 Trustee, BRANDY L. KIRKLAND, MARIA A. TSAGARIS, USCA11 Case: 24-11381 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11381

for U.S. Bank trust NA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-01122-MLB ____________________

Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Derry Grier, pro se, appeals from the district court’s order dis- missing her appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court for lack of jurisdiction. First, to the extent Grier seeks to appeal directly from the bankruptcy court’s February 1, 2024 order dismissing her Chapter 13 petition, we lack jurisdiction because Grier has not ap- pealed to the district court from that dismissal order. See City Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Gen. Coffee Corp. (In re Gen. Coffee Corp.), 758 F.2d 1406, 1408-09 (11th Cir. 1985) (providing that orders of the bank- ruptcy court are generally not directly appealable to the court of appeals, because such orders must first be appealed to the district court). USCA11 Case: 24-11381 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-11381 Opinion of the Court 3

Second, we also lack jurisdiction as to the bankruptcy court’s February 23, 2023 order that Grier appealed to the district court. That order was not final because it did not resolve all issues related to a discrete claim but instead merely directed Grier to make two payments to the Chapter 13 trustee as part of ongoing proceedings. See Barben v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 532 F.3d 1134, 1136 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that a final bankruptcy court order must “com- pletely resolve all of the issues pertaining to a discrete claim, in- cluding issues as to the proper relief”). And while the district court had discretion to review that interlocutory order, 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), we cannot review its refusal to exercise that discretion because that, too, is not a final decision. Both the bankruptcy court’s order and the district court’s order must be final for us to have jurisdiction, and that requirement is not met here. See Mich. State Univ. v. Asbestos Settlement Tr. (In re Celotex Corp.), 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012). We thus lack jurisdiction over the bankruptcy court’s interlocutory order and the district court’s order dismissing Grier’s appeal from that order. See id. (“[W]hether it is the district court’s order denying . . . leave to appeal the bank- ruptcy court’s interlocutory order or it is the bankruptcy court’s [] order under consideration, we cannot say that either of these or- ders are ‘final’ for purposes of our jurisdiction . . . .”). All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 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.