Timothy Jacob Barr v. Darby Butler

USCA11 Case: 26-11312 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 06/17/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-11312 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ TIMOTHY JACOB BARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CROSS CITY POLICE DEPT., Police Department, et al., Defendants, DARBY BUTLER, Sheriff of Dixie County Florida Sued in Individual Capacity and His Official Capacity, JAMEY KING, Chief of Police Cross City Florida Police Department Sued in Individual Capacity and His Official Capacity, BRADLEY LEA, Cross City Police Officer Cross City Florida Police Department Sued in Individual Capacity, BENJAMIN DORMAN, Cross City Police Office Sued in Individual Capacity, USCA11 Case: 26-11312 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 06/17/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 26-11312 MEEKINS, Correctional Officer Dixie County Sheriff Office Sued in Individual Capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-00323-MW-ZCB ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Timothy Jacob Barr, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dis- trict court’s March 27, 2026, order partially dismissing his third amended complaint. Barr filed the third amended complaint against fourteen defendants, asserting nine claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Counts I through IX). A magistrate judge sua sponte screened the third amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and recommended that the district court dismiss Counts IV through IX for failure to state a claim. The court entered an order that adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed those six claims. Counts I through III remain pending before the district court.

We lack jurisdiction over Barr’s appeal because the March 27 order is not final and appealable, as it did not end the lit- igation on the merits and the district court did not certify it for im- mediate review. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(b); CSX Transp., Inc. v. USCA11 Case: 26-11312 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 06/17/2026 Page: 3 of 3

26-11312 Opinion of the Court 3 City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties is not immediately appealable absent certification pursu- ant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). Further, the March 27 order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine be- cause it did not resolve an issue completely separate from the mer- its and is effectively reviewable on appeal from the final judgment.

See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1253 (11th Cir. 2014) (explain- ing that an order that does not conclude the litigation may be ap- pealed under the collateral order doctrine if it conclusively resolves an issue completely separate from the merits and is effectively un- reviewable on appeal from a final judgment).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.