Keith Edwards v. J. Grubbs, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 4

-- 1 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: 2 of 4

-- 2 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, G RANT, and L UCK , 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: 3 of 4

-- 3 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.
USCA11 Case: 22-13261 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --