Jennifer R. Butler v. Secretary of Treasury of USA

── Jennifer R. Butler v. Secretary of Treasury of USA ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 26-10831 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10831 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JENNIFER R. BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY OF TREASURY OF USA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-00001-N ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Jennifer Butler, proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking USCA11 Case: 26-10831 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 26-10831 relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for alleged em- ployment discrimination by her former employer, the United States Department of Treasury. The defendant filed an answer and a motion to compel discovery, and Butler filed a motion to strike portions of the answer and motion. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to compel and denied Butler’s motion to strike in an order entered on March 4, 2026, which Butler now appeals. We lack jurisdiction to review the March 4 order because it is not final, as it did not resolve any claims on the merits, or other- wise immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; 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”). The March 4 order is not immedi- ately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it can be effectively reviewed after the district court enters a final judg- ment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014); Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1004 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Discovery orders are ordinarily not final orders that are immedi- ately appealable.”).