Gloria Evans Mickens v. Tyrec De'Shun Baker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 25-12850
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12850 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12850 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

GLORIA EVANS MICKENS, OTIS EVANS, DORIS ENZOR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus

CIRCUIT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, et al., Defendants, TYREC DE'SHUN BAKER, SHUN LENARD BAKER, FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, DARIO HARRIS, Trooper, ERNEST HUNT, Corporal, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-12850 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12850 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Gloria Evans Mickens, Otis Evans, and Doris Enzor, the plaintiffs in this action, filed a notice of appeal designating: (1) the magistrate judge’s July 15, 2025 order granting a defendant’s mo- tion for an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint; (2) the magistrate judge’s July 17, 2025 order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment; (3) the magistrate judge’s July 29, 2025 order denying their motion for reconsideration of the July 15 order; (4) the district court’s August 11, 2025 order overruling their construed objections to the magistrate judge’s July 15 and July 29 orders; (5) the magistrate judge’s August 11, 2025 order denying their request for recusal; and (6) the district court’s August 18, 2025 order denying their motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s July 15 and July 29 orders. They assert that they are appeal- ing pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and 28 U.S.C. § 1292. None of the orders designated by the plaintiffs is a final or otherwise appealable order. First, none of the orders disposed of any claims in the amended complaint, which is still pending, so there is not a final decision on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that we have jurisdiction over “appeals from all final de- cisions of the district courts”); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden USCA11 Case: 25-12850 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-12850 Opinion of the Court 3

City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (“A final decision is one which ends the litigation on the merits.” (quotation marks omit- ted)); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining, conversely, that a decision that dis- poses of fewer than all claims is not final). Second, none of the appealed orders is immediately appeal- able as a collateral order because they can be reviewed on appeal once a final judgment is entered. See Acheron Capital, Ltd. v. Muk- amal, 22 F.4th 979, 989 (11th Cir. 2022) (explaining that the collat- eral order doctrine allows for appeal of a non-final order if it con- clusively resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of an action and would be effectively unreviewable later); Steering Comm. v. Mead Corp. (In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig.), 614 F.2d 958, 960-62 (5th Cir. 1980) (explaining that the in- terlocutory denial of a motion to recuse the judge is not final or immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as dis- qualification questions are fully reviewable on appeal from the final judgment). Third, none of the appealed orders fit within any of the ex- ceptions to the finality rule provided in § 1292(a), and the district court did not certify any of the orders for interlocutory appeal un- der § 1292(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), (b). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.