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[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit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