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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.
