USCA11 Case: 25-10027 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10027 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ GREGORY B. MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, NAPLES PROPERTY HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-00235-JES-KCD USCA11 Case: 25-10027 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10027 ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Gregory Myers appeals the district court’s order striking his suggestion of bankruptcy and directing him to respond to the de- fendants’ motions to dismiss. Naples Property Holding Company, LLC (“NPHC”) moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It also contends that the appeal is frivolous and seeks sanctions, in- cluding monetary sanctions and an appellate filing injunction.

We agree that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. The or- der from which Myers appeals did not end the litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (explaining that a final and appealable decision “is typi- cally one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment”). Nor is the order effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment 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 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”); see also Feldspar Trucking Co., v. Greater Atlanta Shippers Ass’n, 849 F.2d 1389, 1391-92 (11th Cir. 1988) (providing that a district court’s order staying or refusing to stay its own pro- ceedings is not automatically appealable as injunctive under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)).

USCA11 Case: 25-10027 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-10027 Opinion of the Court 3 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of ju- risdiction is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. The mo- tion to impose sanctions is DENIED.