TAMAH JADA CLARK v. EMILY K. RICHARDSON

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: December 3, 2024
• Docket: A25A0668
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia December 03, 2024 ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A0668. TAMAH JADA CLARK v. EMILY K. RICHARDSON et al.

Tamah Jada Clark filed a pro se complaint naming multiple public officials as defendants. She subsequently moved for default judgment, and the trial court denied her motion and her subsequent motion for reconsideration. Clark filed this appeal.1 We, however, lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” Here, the trial court’s order denying Clark’s motion for default judgment was a non-final order that did not resolve all issues in this case. In order to appeal this ruling, Clark was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures, which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991). Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 12/03/2024 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Clark directed her appeal to the Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this Court. See S25A0073 (Oct. 1, 2024).