Case: 25-1625 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 06/20/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BOUNCE, Legal K.R. Conory, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MIAMI BEACH, FL, MIAMI BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER L. AZICRI, in their indi- vidual and official capacities, OFFICER D. DAMUS, in their individual and official capacities, OFFICER G. PARADA, in their individual and official capaci- ties, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2025-1625 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in No. 1:25-cv-20937-DPG, Judge Darrin P. Gayles. ______________________ PER CURIAM.

ORDER Appellant seeks review of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s dismissal of his complaint alleging civil rights violations. On April 24, 2025, this court directed the parties to address this court’s jurisdiction. None of the parties have filed a response.

Case: 25-1625 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 06/20/2025

2 BOUNCE v. MIAMI BEACH, FL

In general, this court only has authority to review dis- trict court decisions in cases that arise under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trade- mark Office, see id. § 1295(a)(4)(C); or cases that involve certain damages claims against the United States not ex- ceeding $10,000 in amount, id. §§ 1295(a)(2), 1346(a)(2).

This appeal does not fall within any of those categories. We conclude that transfer to the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Eleventh Circuit is appropriate under the cir- cumstances. Id. §§ 41, 1291, 1631. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: This matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

FOR THE COURT

June 20, 2025 Date

1 Although the district court directed appellant to file an amended complaint, he appears to have decided to stand on his complaint. See Schuurman v. Motor Vessel Betty K V, 798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (“For appeal purposes, we hold that the order of dismissal in this situa- tion becomes final upon the expiration of the time allowed for amendment.”).