Jenny Lindsay v. Emory University

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: August 14, 2024
• Docket: 24-11403
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-11403 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11403 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JENNY LINDSAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, et al.,

Defendants,

EMORY UNIVERSITY, DIRECTOR HEIDI FAENZA, Individually, as former Director of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions, DIRECTOR JOHN EARLES, Individually, and in his official capacity as Director USCA11 Case: 24-11403 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11403

of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00886-WMR ____________________

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jenny Lindsay, pro se, appeals (1) the district court’s Septem- ber 11, 2023 order and the related final judgment granting Emory University’s (“Emory”) and Heidi Faenza and John Earles’s mo- tions to dismiss Lindsay’s first amended complaint and strike her second amended complaint, and terminating as moot her motions for default judgment and to correct filing; and (2) the district court’s March 27, 2024 order partially granting her motion to alter or amend the judgment. Those orders are not final or appealable, however, because the March 27 order reinstated Emory as a de- fendant, and, thus, rendered the proceedings non-final. 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). USCA11 Case: 24-11403 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-11403 Opinion of the Court 3

Nor did the district court certify its September 11, 2023 judg- ment 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 disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Further, the district court’s September 11 and March 27, 2024 orders are not 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”). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No pe- tition 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.