Patrick Nathaniel Reed v. Brandel Eugene Chamblee

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: February 27, 2024
• Docket: 24-10058
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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, 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted); Bu- dinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 201-02 (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., 775 F.2d 1495, 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., 746 F.2d 744, 747 (11th Cir. 1984); Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat’l Labs., 711 F.2d 1510, 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.