Defendants/Appellants Iris Tatom, Brandi Clouser, and Alecia Craft appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. “[W]e lack interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds where the sole issues on appeal are issues of evidentiary sufficiency.” Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1485 (11th Cir. 1996). Here, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity was based on its “find[ing] that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Tatom, Clouser, and Craft were deliberately indifferent to [the prisoner’s] serious medical need.” And the only issue raised by the defendants in their appellate brief is “[w]hether there was sufficient evidence to support a permissible inference as a matter of law that any of [the defendants] were deliberately indifferent to a known medical need.” Br. of Appellants at 2 (“Statement of the Issue”); see also id. at iii (“The appeal presents a factually complex question concerning whether there was evidence sufficient to .defeat summary judgment .... The issue which arises is whether there was sufficient evidence of the subjective intent of the [defendants] to support an inference that any of ... them was deliberately indifferent to a known serious medical need.”).

Because the “sole issues on appeal are issues of evidentiary sufficiency,” Cottrell, 85 F.3d at 1485, we lack interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.