Maura O'Neill v. NYU Langone Medical Center, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11212
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MAURA O'NEILL,
a.k.a. Marua Anne O'Neill,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LENOX HILL HOSPITAL,
Defendant,
NYU LANGONE MEDICAL CENTER,
NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN QUEENS,
GRADY HEALTH SYSTEM,
MOUNT SINAI BETH ISRAEL,
NORTHSIDE HOSPITAL FORSYTH,
USCA11 Case: 23-11212 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 10/18/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11212
COLLEGE PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00011-SEG
____________________
Before WILSON , J ILL PRYOR , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon our review of the record and the parties’ responses to
the jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of ju-
risdiction.
Maura O’Neill appeals from the district court’s March 14,
2023 order that, among other things, dismissed defendants NYU
Langone Medical Center, New York Presbyterian-Queens,
Northside Hospital Forsyth, and College Park Police Department
from the action. The order also denied O’Neill’s requests that the
district court enter a permanent injunction requiring defendants to
provide medical records. O’Neill argues that the denial of a perma-
nent injunction was a final ruling and, even if not, is an appealable
interlocutory ruling.
USCA11 Case: 23-11212 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 10/18/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-11212 Opinion of the Court 3
The district court’s order was not a final decision because
O’Neill’s claims against Grady Health System and Mount Sinai
Beth Israel remain pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels
Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012). The
district court did not enter judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b) or otherwise. The order is thus appealable now
only if one of the limited provisions for interlocutory appeals ap-
plies.
The district court’s denial of an injunction is not appealable
under the collateral order doctrine because the district court noted
that O’Neill could request the medical records from the defendants
if the case proceeds to discovery and O’Neill has not established
that the court’s order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment. See Freyre v. Chronister, 910 F.3d 1371, 1377 (11th
Cir. 2018) (providing that a district court order that “contemplates
further substantive proceedings in a case is not final and appeala-
ble”); Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1253 (11th Cir. 2014) (ex-
plaining that an order is appealable under the collateral order doc-
trine if it, inter alia, would be effectively unreviewable on appeal
from a final judgment); see also Drummond Co. v. Collingsworth,
816 F.3d 1319, 1322 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Discovery orders are ordinar-
ily not final orders that are immediately appealable.”). And the de-
nial is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the in-
junctions, if entered, would not provide any of the substantive re-
lief sought in the complaint, are distinct from O’Neill’s claims
against the defendants, and would essentially affect pretrial discov-
ery procedures. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1); Alabama v. U.S. Army
USCA11 Case: 23-11212 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 10/18/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11212
Corps. of Eng’rs, 424 F.3d 1117, 1127-29 (11th Cir. 2005); Switz.
Cheese Ass’n v. E. Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24-25 (1966). Ac-
cordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this premature appeal.
USCA11 Case: 23-11212 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 10/18/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --