USCA11 Case: 23-11965 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11965
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DEANDRE ARNOLD,
on behalf of Tymya Arnold,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF HAMPTON,
WAYNE JERNIGAN,
sued in his official and individual capacity,
OTANYA CLARKE,
in her individual and official capacity,
STACY COLEY,
sued in her official and individual capacity,
DERRICK AUSTIN,
USCA11 Case: 23-11965 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11965
in his official and individual capacity, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
KIM STEPHENS,
sued in her official and individual capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-04970-SEG
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
tion. Deandre Arnold appeals from district court orders dismissing
various defendants and denying his motion to alter or amend part
of the judgment. Those orders are not final and appealable, how-
ever, because they 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
USCA11 Case: 23-11965 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-11965 Opinion of the Court 3
litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
execute its judgment).
Arnold’s claims against defendant Gloria Banister remain
pending before the district court, and the district court did not cer-
tify any of its orders 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 dis-
poses of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not
immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule
54(b)). Additionally, the district court’s March 16, 2023, May 16,
2023, and June 12, 2023 orders that Arnold appears to be challeng-
ing are not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final order
resolving the case on the merits. Plaintiff A v. Schair,
744 F.3d 1247,
1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not con-
clude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doc-
trine if it, inter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment”).
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.
