Mark T. Stinson v. Wayne Haddix

USCA11 Case: 26-10605 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10605 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MARK T. STINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WAYNE HADDIX, d.b.a. Ventures Partnership, AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-24740-EA ____________________ Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 26-10605 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 26-10605 Mark Stinson, proceeding pro se, filed this action in the Southern District of Florida, seeking relief for alleged breach of fi- duciary duty. In 2024, the district court sua sponte transferred the action to the Western District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and denied Stinson’s motion to reconsider the transfer.

Stinson appealed those rulings, but we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the transfer rulings are not final decisions or otherwise immediately appealable.

Stinson then filed in the Southern District of Florida a Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate the transfer or- der. The district court denied that motion in an order entered on February 23, 2026, and Stinson now appeals from that order.

Like Stinson’s previous appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. The district court’s denial of Stinson’s Rule 60(b) motion to vacate, which did not end the litigation on the merits, is not a final, appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that, generally, “[a] final decision is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment”). Further, the order is not appealable under the col- lateral order doctrine because it is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014).

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