Kreb v. Integra Aviation, No. 23-10758 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-10758 Document: 00517016474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-10758 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED December 29, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Robert Kreb, versus Plaintiff—Appellant, Integra Aviation, L.L.C., doing business as Apollo Med Flight; Apollo Med Flight, L.L.C.; Panavia Air Taxi, L.L.C., doing business as Haven Aero, L.L.C.; Haven Aero, L.L.C.; Flight Mechanix, L.L.C.; Young Firm, P.C.; Lee McCammon, Corporate Officer of Apollo; Thomas L. Klassen, Director of Operations; Joseph H. Belsha, III, Chief Pilot; Whitney Smith, Vice President of Human Resources; Travis Lamance, Director of Maintenance; Jeremi K. Young; Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CV-88 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10758 Document: 00517016474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2023 No. 23-10758 Robert Kreb, a pilot, was fired by Integra Aviation after his repeated reports that his flight operation assignments did not comply with federal aviation regulations. He sued, pro se, various private parties and the Secretary of Labor, claiming violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, and asserting libel, defamation, and slander under state law. Those claims were also pending before the Department of Labor. Kreb sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the DOL from initiating a review of his claims by an administrative law judge. In a five-page order issued June 21, 2023, the district court denied the TRO and dismissed the action, without prejudice, for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm that dismissal, essentially for the reasons assigned by the district court. That court properly determined that the Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize judicial interference with an agency action that is not “final.” The court distinguished Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023), because it involved a structural, constitutional claim, which Kreb’s suit does not. The district court also observed that the claims related to the non-federal defendants “are not yet fit for adjudication in federal court.” And the court noted that the suit includes non-diverse parties. As carefully explained by the district court, the dismissal without prejudice is correct and is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
