USCA11 Case: 25-11993 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2025 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit No. 25-11993 Non-Argument Calendar RONALD SATISH EMRIT, a.k.a Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Plaintiff Appellant, PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569987, d.b.a. United Emrits of America, Plaintiff, versus INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ) IN HAGUE, NETHERLANDS, UNITED NATIONS (UN), WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO), COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (CFR), USCA11 Case: 25-11993 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2025 Page: 2 of 3 Opinion of the Court 25-11993 WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO), et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-00126-JRH-BKE Before JORDAN, LUCK, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Ronald Satish Emrit, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of in- terlocutory appeal that we liberally construe as designating the magistrate judge’s June 4, 2025, order providing the parties with instructions for the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) discovery conference and report, as that was the only existing order when Emrit filed his no- tice. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (providing that a notice of appeal must “designate the judgment—or the appealable order—from which the appeal is taken”); Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278-80 (11th Cir. 2001) (explaining that we liberally construe the requirements of Rule 3). Emrit’s notice cannot be construed as des- ignating the district court’s eventual order and judgment dismiss- ing his case because they had not yet been entered when it was filed. See Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, USCA11 Case: 25-11993 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2025 Page: 3of3 25-11993 Opinion of the Court 3 (11th Cir. 1998) (explaining that a notice of appeal must “desig- nate an existent judgment or order’).

The magistrate judge’s order is not a final order or immedi- ately appealable as a collateral order because it left Emrit’s com- plaint pending and, to the extent it resolved any issue, it would be effectively reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that we have jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts”); 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.” (quotation marks omitted)); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining, conversely, that a decision that disposes of fewer than all claims is not final); Acheron Capital, Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 989 (11th Cir. 2022) (explaining that the collateral order doctrine allows for appeal of a non-final order if it conclusively resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of an action and would be effectively unreviewable later (quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.