Emir Yazici v. MAC Parent LLC

── Emir Yazici v. MAC Parent LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2639 __________ EMIR CIHAN YAZICI, Appellant v. MAC PARENT LLC, also known as DIVIDEND RESTAURANT GROUP, also known as SULLIVANS; SULLIVAN'S OF PITTSBURGH, LLC, doing business as SULLIVAN'S STEAKHOUSE ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00658) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Maureen P. Kelly ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 22, 2026 Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and BOVE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 29, 2026) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Emir Yazici appeals from the Magistrate Judge’s order granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the Magistrate Judge’s order. Yazici filed a pro se employment discrimination complaint after being terminated from his job at a restaurant owned by Appellees. The Magistrate Judge, sitting by consent, dismissed the complaint, concluding that the Title VII claims were time-barred and Yazici had failed to plead claims under the WARN Act or ADEA. Yazici appealed, and we determined that Appellees were not entitled to dismissal of the Title VII claims as untimely. We vacated the Magistrate Judge’s order in part and remanded the matter for further proceedings on the Title VII claims. See Yazici v. Bachicha, No. 24-1795, 2024 WL 4879755 at *2 (3d Cir. Nov. 25, 2024) (per curiam). On remand, the Appellees moved to dismiss the Title VII claims for failure to state a claim. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Yazici had not sufficiently alleged that any adverse employment action was taken under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. She granted the motion to dismiss but gave Yazici the opportunity to amend his complaint. Instead of amending his complaint, Yazici filed a notice of appeal. Jurisdiction We first address our jurisdiction over the appeal. Where a District Court has dismissed a proceeding without prejudice, the dismissal is generally not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 unless the litigant cannot cure the defect or the litigant declares an intention to stand on his pleading, whereupon the District Court’s order becomes final. See Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (“Generally, an order which dismisses a complaint without prejudice is neither final nor 2 appealable because the deficiency may be corrected by the plaintiff without affecting the cause of action.”); see also Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232, 240 (3d Cir. 2019) (explaining that “a clear and unequivocal intent to decline amendment and immediately appeal that leaves no doubt or ambiguity can allow us to exercise jurisdiction”). The parties were informed that we would consider possible dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Yazici responded and argued that the