BY THE COURT:

Now before the Court are Appellant’s amended motion to remand this matter to district court for an evidentiary hearing and Appellee’s motion to strike Appellant’s reply in support of his motion for remand.

When this matter was last before us, we affirmed the district court judgment in favor of Appellee. However, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the structure in question was not a “vessel” for purposes of admiralty law, and thus that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the City’s action (herein the “Admiralty Action”). See City of Riviera Beach v. That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length, 649 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2011), reversed sub nom Lozman v. City of Rivi *842 era Beach, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 735, 184 L.Ed.2d 604 (2013). The Supreme Court expressly declined to remand for further proceedings. Id., 133 S.Ct at 745-746.

Appellant has not shown that, despite the district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying action, the court would nevertheless be authorized to award him damages and attorney’s fees. Appellant’s motion for remand is DENIED, without prejudice to his right to pursue in an appropriate forum any remedies that may be available to him.

Appellee’s motion to strike is DENIED.

The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.