BOUNCE, Legal K.R. Conory v. MIAMI BEACH, FL, MIAMI BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER L. AZICRI, in their indi- vidual

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 06/20/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

BOUNCE v. MIAMI BEACH , FL 2
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,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
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.
June 20, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
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.”).
Case: 25-1625 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 06/20/2025

-- 2 of 2 --