USCA11 Case: 25-12300 Document: 4-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-12300 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MYND MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EMMANUEL ADKINS,

Defendant-Appellant,

KRISTEN CROWDER, And All Other Occupants,

Defendant. USCA11 Case: 25-12300 Document: 4-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12300

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-03363-MLB ____________________

Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction because it is not taken from a final or immediately appealable or- der. Emmanuel Adkins, pro se, appears to seek review of the mag- istrate judge’s June 17, 2025 order referring this dispossessory ac- tion to the district judge for a frivolity determination under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That order was not final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as it did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to “final decisions of the district courts”); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that final or- ders generally end litigation on the merits). Moreover, it was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it did not conclusively determine a disputed issue or resolve an important question separate from the merits of the action. Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1253 (11th Cir. 2014). Finally, to the extent Adkins’s notice of appeal seeks to challenge a remand order, it is premature because the district court did not enter such an order until after USCA11 Case: 25-12300 Document: 4-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-12300 Opinion of the Court 3

Adkins filed his notice of appeal. See Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998) (providing that a notice of appeal must designate an existing judgment or order).