[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11676

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRISCILLA ANN ELLIS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00320-SDM-MRM-3

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-11676 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11676

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Priscilla Ellis appeals from the district court’s January 23, 2023 order denying her motion for compassionate release 

and a magistrate judge’s May 2, 2023 report and recommendation 

that the district court deny Ellis’s motion to proceed on appeal in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”). First, to the extent that Ellis challenges the 

January 23, 2023 order, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, as duplicative of Ellis’s pending appeal from the January 23, 2023 order, 

docketed in Appeal No. 23-10437. See Colo. River Water Conservation 

Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976); I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that 

it is well established that federal courts avoid duplicative litigation 

as a general principle in order to conserve judicial resources); see 

also United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding 

that an appellant “is not entitled to two appeals”). 

Second, to the extent that Ellis challenges the magistrate 

judge’s May 2, 2023 report and recommendation, this appeal is 

DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. The district court 

had not adopted or otherwise rendered the report and recommendation final by the time Ellis filed the instant notice of appeal and 

we cannot hear appeals directly from such orders. See Donovan v. 

Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982); See 

United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that we lack jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal 

USCA11 Case: 23-11676 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2023 Page: 2 of 3
23-11676 Opinion of the Court 3

magistrate judges). Moreover, the district court’s subsequent 

adoption of the report and recommendation does not serve to cure

this premature notice of appeal. See Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 

1378, 1385 (11th Cir. 1986); Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of 

Court, 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998). Regardless, even if the 

district court had adopted the report and recommendation before 

Ellis filed the instant notice of appeal, an order denying a motion 

to proceed IFP on appeal is not a final or otherwise appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Gomez v. United States, 245 F.2d 346, 347 

(5th Cir. 1957) (stating that an order denying a motion to appeal in 

forma pauperis is not a final, appealable order). The proper procedure for review of such an order is to renew the motion before this 

Court, which Ellis has done in Appeal No. 23-10437. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 24(a)(5) & advisory committee notes (1967). Accordingly, 

we lack jurisdiction to review the report and recommendation. 

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 23-11676 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2023 Page: 3 of 3