Raziel Ofer v. Laurel Isicoff

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided March 19, 2026·No. 26-10213·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 26-10213

Non-Argument Calendar

RAZIEL OFER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LAUREL M. ISICOFF, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-24738-wfjg

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Raziel Ofer appeals directly from the district court’s

2 Opinion of the Court 26-10213

order denying his motion to stay the proceedings pending a motion to recuse the district judge.

This order is not final because it did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 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). And the order is not otherwise immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (providing for immediate appeal of certain injunction rulings); Feldspar Trucking Co., v. Greater Atlanta Shippers Ass’n, 849 F.2d 1389, 1391-92 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that the denial of a motion to stay is not immediately appealable as an injunction ruling under § 1291(a)(1)); Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-55 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that the denial of a motion to stay is not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

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

Raziel Ofer v. Laurel Isicoff, (11th Cir. 2026).

Raziel Ofer v. Laurel Isicoff (Raziel Ofer v. Laurel Isicoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)