Samuel Ghee, IV v. Flix North America, Inc., et al., No. 23-13655 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-13655 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-13655 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SAMUEL GHEE, IV, Plainti -Appellant, versus FLIX NORTH AMERICA, INC., GREYHOUND LINES INC, GEORGE MOORE, ISSAC SANCHEZ, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-13655 2 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 23-13655 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:23-cv-00070-CDL ____________________ Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon review of the record, we find that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Samuel Ghee, IV appeals from the district court’s October 5, 2023 order that granted Flix North America, Inc.’s and Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s motions to dismiss, denied Ghee’s motion to strike, and denied in part Ghee’s motion to recover the costs of service of process. That order is not final and appealable, however, because it did not end the litigation on the merits in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a final order ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment). Ghee’s claims against defendants Moore and Sanchez remain pending before the district court, and the district court did not certify its order for immediate review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule USCA11 Case: 23-13655 23-13655 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 54(b)). Nor is the district court’s October 5, 2023 order effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final order resolving the case on the merits. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”); Doe No. I v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1004 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that interlocutory discovery orders are generally not immediately appealable). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
