Michael Haspel v. Centurion of Florida, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMarch 24, 2026
Docket26-10327
StatusUnpublished

This text of Michael Haspel v. Centurion of Florida, LLC (Michael Haspel v. Centurion of Florida, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michael Haspel v. Centurion of Florida, LLC, (11th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-10327 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10327 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MICHAEL HASPEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC, PAMELA JANSEN, Nurse Practitioner, NIKI HESSER, RN, MORGAN FISHER, LPN, K. MACHUCA, RN, et al., Defendants-Appellees, JANE DOE, Nurse, USCA11 Case: 26-10327 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 26-10327

Defendant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:23-cv-00083-MCR-MJF ____________________

Before LAGOA, ABUDU, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Michael Haspel, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The district court’s order is not final because Haspel’s claims against three of the defendants remain pending. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a final judgment leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute the judgment); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an order disposing of fewer than all claims is not final). The district court did not certify the order for immediate appeal, and it is not otherwise immediately appealable. See Sargeant, 689 F.3d at 1246 (explaining that an order disposing of fewer than all claims may only be appealable if the district court certifies the order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)); Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an order must USCA11 Case: 26-10327 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 3 of 3

26-10327 Opinion of the Court 3

resolve a collateral issue completely separate from the merits and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Garden City
235 F.3d 1325 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)
A v. Richard Wayne Schair
744 F.3d 1247 (Eleventh Circuit, 2014)
Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant
689 F.3d 1244 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Haspel v. Centurion of Florida, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-haspel-v-centurion-of-florida-llc-ca11-2026.