Greer v. Harreld et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEVEN E. GREER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN HARRELD, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
Case No. 2:24-cv-1237
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Steven Greer’s Rule 54(b) Motion
for Final Judgment (Mot., ECF No. 124). Mr. Greer asks the Court to direct entry of
final judgment as to the first seven claims of the Amended Complaint which were
dismissed in January 2025. (ECF No. 70.) According to Mr. Greer, there is no just
reason for delaying an appeal until entry of a final judgment on all claims. The
Court disagrees.
“Not all final judgments on individual claims should be immediately
appealable, even if they are in some sense separable from the remaining unresolved
claims.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). “[A]n issue
being considered for Rule 54(b) certification may be ‘separate and distinct’ from
other issues in the case and yet be an unsuitable candidate for immediate appeal.”
Corrosioneering, Inc. v. Thyssen Env’t Sys., Inc., 807 F.2d 1279, 1283 (6th Cir.
1986). “Rule 54(b) is not to be used routinely, or as a courtesy or accommodation to
counsel.” Id. at 1282 (internal citations omitted). Rather, “[i]t is left to the sound
Case: 2:24-cv-01237-SDM-CMV Doc #: 125 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
judicial discretion of the district court to determine the ‘appropriate time’ when
each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal.” Curtiss-Wright
Corp., 446 U.S. at 8.
Two claims remain in this case. Although the surviving claims are not
identical to the dismissed claims, it is undisputed that the “underlying facts
overlap.” (Mot., PAGEID# 1169.) Thus, if Mr. Greer were to appeal the seven
dismissed claims now and the two remaining claims later, the appellate court would
potentially “have to decide the same issues more than once[.]” Curtiss-Wright Corp.,
446 U.S. at 8. It is “in the interest of sound judicial administration” to avoid such
piecemeal appeals. Id. (citing Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956)).
Mr. Greer’s Rule 54(b) Motion for Final Judgment (ECF No. 124) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 2:24-cv-01237-SDM-CMV Doc #: 125 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>