Federal inmate Malich Reed appeals following the district court’s 1 adverse grant of partial summary judgment and denial of reconsideration in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). While the parties have not raised the issue, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to enter *537 tain Reed’s appeal. See Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 566 F.3d 771, 773 (8th Cir. 2009) (where it appears jurisdiction is lacking, appellate courts are obligated to consider sua sponte jurisdictional issues). Specifically, there is no final judgment because Reed’s excessive-force claim is still pending below, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions); Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir. 1991) (appeal was premature when some claims remained pending), and none of the exceptions to the final-judgment rule apply, see Huggins, 566 F.3d at 775 (interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)); Krein v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir. 2001) (collateral-order doctrine); Thomas, 931 F.2d at 523 (Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as premature.