Finality Requirement in Multi-Claim Orders: Non-Appealability of Partial Dismissals Without Resolving All Claims

Introduction

Phyllis Weaver, an African-American pharmacist with recognized disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), sued her former employer, Walgreen Company (“Walgreens”), alleging race and disability discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After procedural transfers and a motion to dismiss in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the district court granted Walgreens’ motion to dismiss the Title VII and ADA claims for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), left the § 1981 claim unaddressed, and closed the case. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit confronted whether that order was an appealable “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court held that because Weaver’s § 1981 claim remained unresolved, the order was not final and the appeal had to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion on April 8, 2025, dismissing Weaver’s appeal and remanding for further proceedings on her § 1981 claim. The key holdings are:

A district court order that dismisses some but not all claims against a party is not a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and thus is not immediately appealable.
Although the district court recognized Weaver’s § 1981 claim in passing, it never addressed or disposed of it before entering judgment “closing” the case.
Because the § 1981 claim remained pending, the Fourth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and remanded for adjudication of that claim.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2015): Emphasizes that appellate jurisdiction turns on substance, not form, and that a “final” order must resolve every claim. The Fourth Circuit applied Porter’s functional test for finality.
Fox v. Baltimore City Police Department, 201 F.3d 526 (4th Cir. 2000): Clarifies the “all claims” requirement for finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Hixson v. Moran, 1 F.4th 297 (4th Cir. 2021): Identifies factors showing whether a district court “displayed awareness” of a claim or addressed its “central component,” thereby making the order final.
Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790 (4th Cir. 2022) and Est. of Cunningham v. Mayor of Baltimore, 128 F.4th 238 (4th Cir. 2025): Contrast situations where the court’s reasoning as to one claim or defendant necessarily applied to others, producing final orders.

Legal Reasoning

1. Finality Requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Section 1291 grants jurisdiction only over “final decisions” of district courts. The Fourth Circuit reaffirmed that a decision is final only when it “dispose[s] of all claims as to all parties.” Courts must look at substance over labels: a judgment marked “Case Closed” is not final if any claim remains pending.

2. Distinction Between Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6)
Walgreens’ motion to dismiss the Title VII and ADA claims rested on jurisdictional grounds (Rule 12(b)(1)), whereas its motion as to the § 1981 claim was on the merits (Rule 12(b)(6)). Because the court granted only the 12(b)(1) motion, it had authority to dismiss Title VII and ADA claims for lack of jurisdiction but not the § 1981 claim, which required analysis of the complaint’s factual and legal sufficiency.

3. Unaddressed Claim Prevents Final Judgment
Although the district court’s opinion mentioned the § 1981 claim in its factual recitation, it never analyzed or dismissed it. The court’s order granting dismissal as to some claims and then stating “Case Closed” without explicitly disposing of the § 1981 count left that claim pending and deprived the order of finality.

Impact

This decision underscores the necessity for district courts to explicitly resolve every claim before entering final judgment. It serves as a caution to:

Ensure that motions disposing of only part of a complaint are followed by either a Rule 54(b) certification (permitting appeal of separate claims) or completion of adjudication of all claims.
Avoid jurisdictional challenges based on supposed “case closed” orders that fail to address pending claims.
Reinforce uniform application of the final judgment rule across circuits, promoting procedural clarity and protecting parties’ appellate rights.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Final Decision (28 U.S.C. § 1291): A district court order that ends litigation on the merits for all claims and parties. Partial dismissals without disposing of every claim are not final and cannot be appealed immediately.
Rule 12(b)(1) vs. Rule 12(b)(6): Rule 12(b)(1) challenges a court’s power to hear a case (jurisdictional defects). Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a viable claim (merits). Dismissing jurisdictional claims does not automatically dispose of claims attacked on the merits.
EEOC Right-to-Sue Letter: A prerequisite for filing Title VII and ADA claims, triggering a 90-day filing window. Not required for § 1981 suits, which proceed independently.

Conclusion

In Phyllis Weaver v. Walgreen Company, the Fourth Circuit clarified that a district court’s order dismissing some—but not all—claims and then “closing” the case is not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appeals are proper only after every claim and party has been disposed of or when a valid Rule 54(b) certification is entered. The decision highlights the importance of procedural completeness in multi-claim litigation and safeguards parties’ appellate rights by ensuring that no claim remains unadjudicated at the time a case is deemed closed.