USCA11 Case: 24-10473 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10473 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
DIONTE JERMAINE DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TIFFANI S. KNOX, Assistant Warden, C. RUSSELL, State Classification Officer, TYLER WATSON, Assistant Lieutenant, RICHARD J. ANDREWS, Classification Supervisor, M.D. MASON,
USCA11 Case: 24-10473 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 2 of 4 USCA11 Case: 24-10473 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 3 of 4 USCA11 Case: 24-10473 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 4 of 4
Footnotes
[2] Opinion of the Court 24-10473 Corrections Officer - Major, et al., Defendants-Appellees, D. REED, Corrections Officer, et al., Defendants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cv-00298-MMH-LLL ____________________ Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon review of the record and the appellant’s response to the jurisdictional questions (“JQs”), we conclude that we lack juris- diction over this appeal because it is not taken from final or other- wise appealable orders. Dionte Davis appeals from the district court’s order partially dismissing his complaint, and from a magis- trate judge’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. In his response to our JQs, Davis argues that we have juris- diction to review the district court’s partial dismissal order, because 24-10473 Opinion of the Court 3 it dismissed claims for which he sought injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (providing that we have jurisdiction to hear ap- peals from non-final orders “granting, continuing, modifying, re- fusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions”); see also Citizens Concerned About Our Children v. School Bd., 193 F.3d 1285, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that an inter- locutory order dismissing claims requesting injunctive relief may be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it “has the effect of denying” injunctive relief). However, the partial dismissal order is not reviewable under § 1292(a)(1), because Davis never moved for a preliminary injunction or showed that the dismissal of his claims seeking injunctive relief would result in irreparable harm. See Citizens Concerned About Our Children, 193 F.3d at 1289-90 (con- cluding that order dismissing some but not all claims was not im- mediately appealable because, although the complaint requested injunctive relief, the appellant failed to show a risk of irreparable harm); see also Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010) (dismissing appeal as to district court’s order that injunctive relief was not available for certain claims because district court did not explicitly deny an injunction and plaintiffs never argued that irreparable harm may result from dismissal of those claims and never moved for a preliminary injunction). Davis requested dam- ages and injunctive relief as to all claims and all defendants, gener- ally, and that relief is still available because most of his claims are still pending in the district court. We also lack jurisdiction over Davis’s appeal from the mag- istrate judge’s order denying his motion for appointment of
[4] Opinion of the Court 24-10473 counsel. Davis appeals directly from that order, which is not im- mediately appealable because the district court has not adopted it or otherwise rendered it final. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 636, 1291; Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (ex- plaining that magistrate judge orders issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not final and may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.