Court Opinion

ID: 9929385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 16:03:56.965619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:19:59.234537
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10079   Document: 19-1    Date Filed: 02/02/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 24-10079
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       DENNIS MCDANIEL,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SOUTHERN CORRECTIONAL MEDICINE LLC,
       d.b.a. Genesys Health Alliance,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee,

       DR. PETER WROBEL, et al.,

                                                          Defendants.
USCA11 Case: 24-10079      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  24-10079

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cv-00140-CAR
                           ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Dennis McDaniel filed a complaint against Southern Correc-
       tional Medicine, LLC, d/b/a Genesys Health Alliance (“Genesys”);
       Dr. Peter Wrobel; Dr. Shad Stormant; Daniela Torres; Nurse
       Rawni Sprague; Sheriff Cullen Talton; and Houston County, Geor-
       gia for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while
       incarcerated.
             All defendants answered McDaniel’s complaint. On August
       4, 2022, the district court granted a motion for judgment on the
       pleadings filed by Sheriff Talton and Houston County and dis-
       missed them from the action.
              McDaniel and the remaining defendants entered two joint
       stipulations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(ii) that purported to
       dismiss the remaining defendants from the action, with the second
       stipulation stating that the district court’s August 4, 2022, order was
       then final and appealable. However, neither Sheriff Talton nor
       Houston County signed either stipulation, and Genesys was the
       only defendant who signed the second stipulation. The day after
USCA11 Case: 24-10079       Document: 19-1       Date Filed: 02/02/2024      Page: 3 of 3

       24-10079                Opinion of the Court                            3

       filing the second stipulation, McDaniel filed a notice of appeal from
       the August 4, 2022, order. The district court has not entered any
       orders since the stipulations were filed.
              The district court’s August 4, 2022, order dismissing all
       claims against Sheriff Talton and Houston County is not final be-
       cause Wrobel, Stormant, Torres, Sprague, and Genesys remain
       parties to the action. See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689
       F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012). While McDaniel attempted to dis-
       miss these defendants in two joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulations,
       the stipulations were ineffective because they were not signed by
       all parties who had appeared in the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
       41(a)(1)(A); City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82
       F.4th 1031, 1038 (11th Cir. 2023). Moreover, McDaniel did not take
       any action that could be construed as a motion to dismiss these
       parties pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) or a motion to amend the plead-
       ings pursuant to Rule 15(a), and the district court did not enter any
       order in response to the stipulations, much less one that could be
       construed as granting such motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2);
       Sanchez v. Disc. Rock & Sand, 84 F.4th 1283, 1291-92 (11th Cir.
       2023); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d
       1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, McDaniel’s appeal is
       taken from a non-final order and cannot invoke our jurisdiction.
       See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
              No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies
       with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all
       other applicable rules.