Justin Laster v. City of Atlanta, et al
| JUSTIN LASTER |
| CITY OF ATLANTA, KEISHA LANCE BOTTOMS, FELICIA MOORE, CARLA SMITH, AMIR R. FAROKHI, ANTONIO BROWN, CLETA WINSLOW, NATALYN ARCHIBONG, JENNIFER NAVA IDE, HOWARD SHOOK, J. P. MATZIGKEIT, DUSTIN HILLS, ANDREA L. BOONE, MARCI COLLIER OVERSTREET, JOYCE SHEPERD, MICHAEL JULIAN BOND, MATT WESTMORELAND, ANDRE DICKENS, A. LAVIGEOUR and MAYOR OF ATLANTA |
| 22-13639 |
| October 25, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Justin Laster appeals the district courts October 13, 2022, order dismissing in part his second amended complaint. Although the district courts October 13, 2022, order resolved the claims against most of the defendants, it did not end the litigation on the merits because the Fourth Amendment claim against A. Lavigeour remains pending. Thus, because the court did not certify the order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), it is not final or otherwise immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an order adjudicating fewer than all the claims in a suit, or adjudicating the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken, unless the district court properly certifies a judgment on fewer than all claims or parties as final under Rule 54(b)); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (A final decision is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.). All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules. ELB, RJL and BL (See attached order for complete text) [Entered: 12/23/2022 02:21 PM]
|
| Filing 5 Appendix filed [1 VOLUMES] by Party Justin Laster. [Entered: 12/22/2022 03:33 PM] |
| Filing 4 Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Justin Laster. [Entered: 12/21/2022 02:52 PM] |
| Filing 3 Appellant's brief filed by Justin Laster. [Entered: 12/07/2022 11:36 AM] |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Justin Laster. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP). Failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both. If you are an appellant or petitioner, upon expiration of 14 days from the date of this notice, your appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution if the default has not been remedied, pursuant to 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-5(c) and 42-1(b). If you are an appellee or respondent, no action will be taken on documents submitted until the CIP deficiency is remedied. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-5. [Entered: 11/28/2022 08:38 AM] |
| CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Justin Laster on 11/25/2022. Fee Status: IFP Granted. No hearings to be transcribed. The appellant's brief is due on or before. The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief. Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 11/15/2022 as to Appellant Justin Laster. [Entered: 11/01/2022 12:00 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
