# Felissa Grissett v. Google > Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · August 14, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11120473 ## Case - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - **Decided:** August 14, 2025 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Nature of suit:** NEW - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11120473 ## Opinion text USCA11 Case: 25-12646 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2025 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12646 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ FELISSA GRISSETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GOOGLE, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-04260-MHC ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-12646 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2025 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12646 Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. The day after filing the complaint that initiated this action, Felissa Grissett, pro se, filed a notice of appeal. The district court had not yet entered any order. The notice appears to complain of the assigned district judge and of Grissett’s lack of e-filing access. The court later entered an order and judgment dismissing the ac- tion. We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was filed before the district court entered or announced the final order and judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that ap- pellate jurisdiction is generally limited to final decisions of the dis- trict courts); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (providing that a notice of appeal must designate the judgment or appealable order from which the appeal is taken); Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998) (explaining that a notice of appeal is ineffective to appeal a contemplated future order or judgment that does not exist at the time the notice of appeal is filed, unless the decision or order was already announced). All pending motions are DENIED as moot. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11120473. Public record. Not legal advice.