USCA11 Case: 24-10058   Document: 30-1    Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 1 of 3




                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 24-10058
                         ____________________

       PATRICK NATHANIEL REED,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       BRANDEL EUGENE CHAMBLEE,
       TGC, LLC,
       d.b.a. Golf Channel,
       DAMON HACK,
       BENJAMIN SHANE BACON,
       EAMON LYNCH, et al.,


                                                Defendants-Appellees,


       GOLFWEEK,
USCA11 Case: 24-10058      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 2 of 3




       2                        Order of the Court                  24-10058

                                                                  Defendant.


                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-01059-TJC-PDB
                           ____________________

       Before BRASHER and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       BY THE COURT:
              This appeal is DISMISSED IN PART, sua sponte, for lack of
       jurisdiction. Patrick Reed appeals the district court’s order dismiss-
       ing his case, and its later order denying his motions for recusal and
       reconsideration and granting the defendants’ motion for entitle-
       ment to attorney’s fees and costs under Florida’s Anti-SLAPP stat-
       ute. The court’s order dismissing Reed’s case and the portion of its
       post-dismissal order denying his motions for recusal and reconsid-
       eration are final and appealable. See World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner,
       

 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted); Bu-
       dinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 

 (1988) (noting
       that an order which resolves everything except attorney’s fees is
       immediately appealable).
              However, the portion of the post-dismissal order granting
       the defendants’ motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees is not final
       and appealable because it does not determine the amount of fees
       due. See Interstate Pipe Maint., Inc. v. FMC Corp., 

, 1497
USCA11 Case: 24-10058     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024    Page: 3 of 3




       24-10058                Order of the Court                         3

       (11th Cir. 1985); Fort v. Roadway Express, Inc., 

       (11th Cir. 1984); Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat’l Labs., 

, 1523
       (11th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Reed’s appeal may proceed only as
       to the court’s order dismissing his case and the portion of its post-
       dismissal order denying his motions for recusal and reconsidera-
       tion.
              No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it com-
       plies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2
       and all other applicable rules.