Kreb v. Integra Aviation ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10758 Document: 00517016474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10758
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ December 29, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Robert Kreb, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Integra Aviation, L.L.C., doing business as Apollo Med
Flight; Apollo Med Flight, L.L.C.; Panavia Air Taxi,
L.L.C., doing business as Haven Aero, L.L.C.; Haven Aero,
L.L.C.; Flight Mechanix, L.L.C.; Young Firm, P.C.; Lee
McCammon, Corporate Officer of Apollo; Thomas L. Klassen,
Director of Operations; Joseph H. Belsha, III, Chief Pilot; Whitney
Smith, Vice President of Human Resources; Travis Lamance, Director
of Maintenance; Jeremi K. Young; Secretary, United States
Department of Labor,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:23-CV-88
______________________________
Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10758 Document: 00517016474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2023
No. 23-10758
Robert Kreb, a pilot, was fired by Integra Aviation after his repeated
reports that his flight operation assignments did not comply with federal avi-
ation regulations. He sued, pro se, various private parties and the Secretary
of Labor, claiming violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, and assert-
ing libel, defamation, and slander under state law. Those claims were also
pending before the Department of Labor. Kreb sought a temporary restrain-
ing order to enjoin the DOL from initiating a review of his claims by an admin-
istrative law judge.
In a five-page order issued June 21, 2023, the district court denied the
TRO and dismissed the action, without prejudice, for want of subject matter
jurisdiction. We affirm that dismissal, essentially for the reasons assigned by
the district court.
That court properly determined that the Administrative Procedure
Act does not authorize judicial interference with an agency action that is not
“final.” The court distinguished Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890
(2023), because it involved a structural, constitutional claim, which Kreb’s
suit does not. The district court also observed that the claims related to the
non-federal defendants “are not yet fit for adjudication in federal court.”
And the court noted that the suit includes non-diverse parties.
As carefully explained by the district court, the dismissal without pre-
judice is correct and is AFFIRMED.
2