Felissa Grissett v. Army

USCA11 Case: 25-12731 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 25-12731 Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

FELISSA GRISSETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ARMY, UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, DEPART OF JUSTICE, DEPART OF DEFENSE, ARMY BOARD OF MILITARY CORRECTION, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-mi-00056-MHC

____________________ Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

USCA11 Case: 25-12731 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12731 PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. The day after filing the complaint that initiated this action, Felissa Grissett, pro se, filed a notice of appeal. The district court had not yet entered any order. The notice appears to complain of the assigned district judge and the fact that the action was desig- nated on the court’s docket as “miscellaneous” rather than “civil.” The court later entered an order dismissing the action as frivolous.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was filed before the district court entered or announced any order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to final decisions of the district courts); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (providing that a notice of appeal must designate the judgment or appealable order from which the appeal is taken); Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998) (explaining that a notice of appeal is ineffective to appeal a contemplated future order or judgment that does not exist at the time the notice of appeal is filed, unless the decision or order was already announced).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot.