Mark T. Stinson, Sr. v. Wayne Haddix

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12869

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MARK T. STINSON, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE HADDIX, d.b.a. Ventures Partnership, AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12869

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-24740-JLK

____________________

Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Mark Stinson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order transferring his case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. now moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because, it argues, the order is not appealable.

We agree that we lack jurisdiction. Neither the district court’s transfer order nor its denial of Stinson’s motion for reconsideration , which did not end the litigation on the merits, are final, appealable orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Middlebrooks v. Smith, 735 F.2d 431, 432 (11th Cir. 1984) (explaining that § 1406(a) transfers are non-appealable interlocutory orders). Further, neither order falls under the collateral order doctrine because they are not effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014); Middlebrooks , 735 F.2d at 433 (explaining that transfer orders do not fall under the collateral order doctrine).

3

24-12869 Opinion of the Court 3

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.