Dwight Smith v. City of Johns Creek

USCA11 Case: 26-11386 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-11386 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

DWIGHT SMITH, CATHERINE SMITH, BRYANT SMITH,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus CITY OF JOHNS CREEK, a Municipality in the State of Georgia, ERIC EHRENREICH, BRADLEY ROSENQUIST, MICHAEL BACON, JAMES TAIT, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 26-11386 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 26-11386

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-01163-SEG ____________________

Before GRANT, LAGOA, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. The appellants, proceeding pro se, appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their claims against Eric Ehrenreich and dismissing Ehrenreich from the case.

The appealed order is not final because it did not end the litigation on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a final judgment leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute the judgment); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an order disposing of fewer than all claims is not final). The appellants’ claims against several other defendants remain pending. The order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment, as delaying review until then would not imperil a substantial interest. Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 989 (11th Cir. 2022) (explaining that, among other requirements, an order must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine); Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107 (2009) (explaining that the collateral

USCA11 Case: 26-11386 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2026 Page: 3 of 3 26-11386 Opinion of the Court 3 order doctrine applies when delayed review of an order “would imperil a substantial public interest or some particular value of a high order”).