USCA11 Case: 25-11789 Document: 16 Date Filed: 08/13/2025 Page: 1 of 3

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-11789 ____________________

ABDUR-RAHIM DIB DUDAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-01480-WMR ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-11789 Document: 16 Date Filed: 08/13/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Order of the Court 25-11789

BY THE COURT: This appeal is DISMISSED IN PART, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Abdur-Rahim Dudar, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s May 5, 2025 order denying his second motion for reconsideration and all preceding judgments and orders. Before the May 5 order, the district court entered a final order and judg- ment on February 6, 2024 and an order denying Dudar’s first mo- tion for reconsideration on October 24, 2024. We liberally con- strue Dudar’s pro se notice of appeal as seeking to appeal from all three orders. See KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006); Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). Dudar’s notice of appeal, which was filed on May 21, 2025, is untimely to challenge the district court’s February 6, 2024 final order and judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Dudar’s motions for reconsideration were filed more than 28 days after the order and final judgment were entered, and thus, did not toll the time to appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Advanced Bodycare Sols., LLC v. Thoine Int’l, Inc., 615 F.3d 1352, 1359 n.15 (11th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we lack ju- risdiction to review the February 6, 2024 order and judgment. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010). However, Dudar’s notice of appeal was timely to challenge the district court’s October 24, 2024 and May 5, 2025 orders deny- ing his motions for reconsideration. His second motion for recon- sideration was timely to toll the period to appeal from the order USCA11 Case: 25-11789 Document: 16 Date Filed: 08/13/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-11789 Order of the Court 3

denying his first motion for reconsideration and his notice was filed within 30 days of the May 5, 2025 order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Williams v. Bolger, 633 F.2d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1980). Thus, this appeal MAY PROCEED as to only the Octo- ber 24, 2024 and May 5, 2025 orders. No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it com- plies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules.