USCA11 Case: 24-10203 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10203 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DIONTE JERMAINE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: 24-10203 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10203 Corrections Officer - Major, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

D. REED, Corrections Officer, et al.,

Defendant.

____________________ 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: Dionte Davis appeals, pro se, from the district court’s No- vember 7, 2023 partial dismissal order. We issued a jurisdictional question asking whether the appeal is from a final and appealable order. None of the parties has responded.

This appeal is not taken from a final decision because the November 7 order dismissed only some of Davis’s claims, and his case remains pending in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 24-10203 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-10203 Opinion of the Court 3 2000) (explaining that we generally only have jurisdiction over ap- peals from final decisions of district courts that end the litigation on the merits). Furthermore, the November 7 order is not immedi- ately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as an order denying injunctive relief because Davis did not move for a preliminary in- junction in the district court and has not argued on appeal that an immediate appeal is necessary to avoid irreparable harm. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (providing that we have jurisdiction to review district court orders refusing injunctions); Citizens Concerned About Our Children v. School Bd., 193 F.3d 1285, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 1999) (explaining that an interlocutory order that dismisses claims re- questing injunctive relief may be appealable under § 1292(a)(1) even though it “does not rule on a request for injunctive relief” be- cause it “has the effect of denying” injunctive relief, but the appel- lant must show that the effective denial poses serious and possibly irreparable consequences without an immediate appeal); Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010) (dismissing appeal as to five counts that sought injunctive relief because plaintiffs never argued that irreparable harm may result from dismissal of those counts and never moved for a preliminary injunction).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.