Court Opinion

ID: 9940742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 15:01:27.29057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:43.750278
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13261     Document: 47-1     Date Filed: 02/15/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-13261
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       KEITH EDWARDS,
       as Administrator of the Estate of
       Jerry Blasingame,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       J. GRUBBS,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant,

       ATLANTA POLICE DEPT., et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-13261     Document: 47-1   Date Filed: 02/15/2024    Page: 2 of 4

       2                     Opinion of the Court               22-13261

                                                           Defendants.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-02047-SCJ
                          ____________________

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-11427
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       KEITH EDWARDS,
       as Administrator of the Estate of
       Jerry Blasingame,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       OFFICER J. GRUBBS,
       #6416,
       THE CITY OF ATLANTA,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-13261        Document: 47-1       Date Filed: 02/15/2024       Page: 3 of 4

       22-13261                  Opinion of the Court                            3

                               ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Georgia
                       D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-02047-SCJ
                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This case arises from an incident between Defendant Officer
       J. Grubbs and Jerry Blasingame, in which Grubbs tased Blasingame
       and caused him serious physical injuries. Plaintiff Keith Edwards,
       Blasingame’s guardian and conservator, brought suit against
       Grubbs and the City of Atlanta consisting of three claims: Count I
       is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Grubbs and the City; Count II is
       an assault and battery claim against Grubbs; and Count III is a
       respondeat superior claim against the City.1 Count III was resolved
       at summary judgment, and the district court issued an order
       recognizing the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss Count II
       under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The court issued a split
       decision on Count I, with Edwards prevailing in his claim against
       Grubbs, but losing his claim against the City. Grubbs and Edwards
       appeal these respective judgments.

       1 Edwards also brought suit against the Atlanta Police Department, which was

       later dismissed as a defendant.
USCA11 Case: 22-13261      Document: 47-1      Date Filed: 02/15/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13261

              We do not have jurisdiction over this appeal, however,
       because there is no final judgment. Final judgment generally
       requires that the district court resolve “conclusively the substance
       of all claims, rights, and liabilities of all parties to an action.”
       Sanchez v. Disc. Rock & Sand, Inc., 84 F.4th 1283, 1291 (11th Cir.
       2023) (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted). And Rule 41
       “provides only for the dismissal of an entire action,” not a single
       claim. Rosell v. VMSB, LLC, 67 F.4th 1141, 1143 (11th Cir. 2023). So
       the district court’s Rule 41 dismissal of only Count II is invalid, and
       “a final judgment was never rendered.” Id. We DISMISS Grubbs’s
       and Edwards’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction.