Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Irvin E. Caraway, II v. Equifax

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-12267
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (5K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12267 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-12267
Non-Argument Calendar

IRVIN E. CARAWAY, II,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus

EQUIFAX,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-04753-TWT

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Irvin E. Caraway, II, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of ap-
peal in his civil case that was consolidated in the multidistrict liti-
gation for cases arising out of the 2017 Equifax data breach, which,
USCA11 Case: 25-12267 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12267

upon approving a class action settlement, the district court dis-
missed with prejudice in 2020. In his notice, Caraway expressly
sought to appeal this case but did not clearly identify any rulings
from which he was appealing.
Premised on Caraway’s notice evincing an intent to appeal
from the district court’s most recent order denying Caraway’s post-
judgment motion to transfer venues, Equifax moves to dismiss his
appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Caraway lacks standing
to challenge the order and that the order is neither final nor other-
wise appealable. Equifax alternatively moves for summary affir-
mance. Caraway did not respond.
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement,” and we cannot entertain an appeal that
is out of time. Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th
Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted, alteration in original). A no-
tice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days after the
entry of the challenged ruling unless there is a federal party. 28
U.S.C. § 2107 (a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If the final day of an
appeal period falls on a holiday or weekend, the final day to appeal
becomes the next day that is not a holiday or weekend. Fed. R.
App. P. 26(a)(1)(C).
“Every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in
a separate document,” except orders disposing of certain motions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). A judgment “includes a decree and any order
from which an appeal lies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). When a separate
document is required by Rule 58(a), a judgment or order is deemed
USCA11 Case: 25-12267 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-12267 Opinion of the Court 3

entered under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) when the
judgment is set forth on a separate document or 150 days have
passed from entry of the judgment on the civil docket, whichever
is earlier. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A).
In civil cases, we treat post-judgment proceedings as “free-
standing litigation, in effect treating the final judgment as the first
rather than the last order in the case,” and, thus, deem an order
final “if it disposes of all the issues raised in the motion that initially
sparked the . . . proceedings.” Mayer v. Wall St. Equity Grp., Inc., 672
F.3d 1222, 1224 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted).
Upon review of the record and Equifax’s motion to dismiss,
we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over Caraway’s appeal be-
cause his notice of appeal is not timely to challenge any order in
this case. The district court entered its most recent order on the
docket on November 7, 2024, which denied Caraway’s post-judg-
ment motion and concluded the post-judgment proceeding. Be-
cause the district court did not enter judgment on a document sep-
arate from its November 7 order, the order is not deemed entered
until April 7, 2025—the first business day following 150 days after
its entry on the docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a); Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(7)(A), 26(a)(1)(C); Mayer, 672 F.3d at 1224. If Caraway
sought to appeal from the November 7 order, he was therefore re-
quired to file a notice of appeal by May 7, 2025. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2107 (a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Caraway did not file his notice
until June 30, 2025.
USCA11 Case: 25-12267 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12267

The notice is thus untimely to appeal from the November 7,
2024, order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). As
his notice of appeal is not timely to appeal from the court’s most
recent order, Caraway’s notice is also not timely to appeal from
any earlier order. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review his ap-
peal. See Green, 606 F.3d at 1300.
Accordingly, Equifax’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and
Caraway’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Equifax’s
alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED as moot.