Steven Sherman v. Castro

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 28, 2024
• Docket: 23-13933
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-13933 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 06/28/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13933 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

STEVEN DOUGLAS SHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus A. BURLESON, Officer, et al.,

Defendants,

CASTRO, LPN, B. BOTTOMS, HSA, E. HERNANDEZ-PEREZ, USCA11 Case: 23-13933 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 06/28/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13933

DR., PYBUS, LPN, AMY SCOTT, HSA, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00537-MCR-ZCB ____________________

Before WILSON, GRANT, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon review of the record and the response to the jurisdic- tional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Steven Sherman appeals from the district court’s November 17, 2023 final order and summary judgment in favor of several defend- ants. However, Sherman previously filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulations of voluntary dismissal as to three de- fendants that were not signed by all parties. Because not all defend- ants signed those filings, those stipulations were ineffective to dis- pose of the claims against the three defendants, and those claims remain pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); City of USCA11 Case: 23-13933 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 06/28/2024 Page: 3 of 3

23-13933 Opinion of the Court 3

Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 82 F.4th 1031 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding that a stipulation of voluntary dismissal must be signed by all parties who have appeared regardless of whether they remain in the action). Because not all of Sherman’s claims have been disposed of, the appeal is not taken from a final decision, and we lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2012). To the extent that appellees purport to waive Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)’s sig- nature requirement, our appellate jurisdiction cannot be waived. See, e.g., Esteva v. UBS Fin. Servs. Inc. (In re Esteva), 60 F.4th 664, 670-79 (11th Cir. 2023); Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 998 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th Cir. 2021).