Ogle v. Hocker

179 F. App'x 314
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 3, 2006
Docket05-1508
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 F. App'x 314 (Ogle v. Hocker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ogle v. Hocker, 179 F. App'x 314 (6th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Reverend Troy D. Ogle, an international evangelist formerly affiliated with the Church of God, sued Reverend Rick Hocker, a Church of God pastor, for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit’s central allegation was that Hocker made false statements concerning Ogle’s sexuality. Hocker invoked the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Alternatively, he argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on the merits of Ogle’s defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

The district court rejected Hocker’s ecclesiastical abstention argument but granted him summary judgment on Ogle’s defamation claim. In its order granting summary judgment, the district court explained that Hocker’s alleged statements were not actionable under Michigan defamation law. The order did not dispose of Ogle’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and the district court did not certify an interlocutory appeal. Ogle timely appealed to this court, raising arguments in support of his defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

We dismiss Ogle’s appeal because “we must sua sponte police our own jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties challenged jurisdiction.” Ohio v. Doe, 433 *315 F.3d 502, 506 (6th Cir.2006). Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to final judgments rendered by the district courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, unless a district court certifies an interlocutory appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We may review “a decision by the District Court ... [only if it] ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. "Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 373, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981) (internal quotation omitted); see also Mississippi Valley Equip. Co. v. Slurry Sys., Inc., 948 F.2d 1289, 1289 (6th Cir.1991) (table) (indicating that this court may review an order issued by the district court only “if it leaves nothing remaining for the district court to do except execute final judgment”). Therefore, “an order disposing of fewer than all the ... claims in an action is nonappealable” to this court. Mississippi Valley, 948 F.2d at 1289. Accordingly, we dismiss Ogle’s appeal for want of jurisdiction because the district court order failed to dispose of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

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

Related

Ogle v. Hocker
279 F. App'x 391 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 F. App'x 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogle-v-hocker-ca6-2006.