Ronald Satish Emrit v. Sabine Aisha Jules

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 8, 2023
• Docket: 23-11575
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-11575 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11575 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SABINE AISHA JULES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00453-JHE ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11575 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11575

Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and BRASHER. Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Ronald Emrit filed a notice of appeal in the above-listed civil action. While he did not designate a specific order for appeal, the only orders entered in the case were a magistrate judge’s order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis but directing the filing of an amended complaint, and his later order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed because Emrit failed to timely file an amended complaint. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) (providing that a notice of appeal must, among other things, “designate the judg- ment, order, or part thereof being appealed”). But see Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 767 (2001) (“Imperfections in noticing an appeal should not be fatal where no genuine doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, to which appellate court.”). Magistrate judge orders issued under the supervision of a district court “are not final orders and may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court.” Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982). This Court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment entered by a magistrate judge only if the parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction over the case. McNab v. J & J Marine, Inc., 240 F.3d 1326, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2001); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). USCA11 Case: 23-11575 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 3 of 4

23-11575 Opinion of the Court 3

While there is no indication here that the parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over the case, we lack jurisdiction even if they did, because the orders the magistrate judge issued do not constitute a final decision that may be immediately appealed. The order directing the filing of an amended complaint identified defects in Emrit’s original complaint, but did not make any defini- tive determination regarding the existence of jurisdiction, the pro- priety of venue, or whether the complaint stated a viable claim. Instead, it simply found that the complaint needed to be recast be- fore those determinations could be made, contemplating further proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A final decision is typically one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment.” (quotation marks omitted)); Freyre v. Chronister, 910 F.3d 1371, 1377 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a district court order which “contemplates further substantive pro- ceedings in a case is not final and appealable”). Even after Emrit did not amend his complaint by the magis- trate judge’s deadline and filed a notice of appeal, there was no final dismissal order because the magistrate judge had not yet held ei- ther that no amendment was possible or that the dismissal of the complaint constituted a dismissal of the action. See Auto. Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F.3d 707, 719- 22 (11th Cir. 2020); Garfield v. NDC Health Cor., 466 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining that when a complaint is invol- untarily dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend, and the plaintiff elects to pursue an appeal before the time to amend expires USCA11 Case: 23-11575 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11575

rather than amend the complaint, the plaintiff waives his right to amend, thereby rendering the dismissal order final and appealable); Czeremcha v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 724 F.2d 1552, 1554-55 & n.4 (11th Cir. 1984) (explaining that the dismissal of a complaint, not of the action, is not a final order, un- less the court holds either that no amendment is possible or that the dismissal of the complaint also constitutes a dismissal of the ac- tion). Indeed, the magistrate judge’s order to show cause, entered after the time to amend expired, shows that the action had not yet been dismissed, and itself contemplated further proceedings before dismissal would take place. Freyre, 910 F.3d at 1377. No petition 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.