N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Plaintiff

- Petitioner

v.

CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant

- Respondent

______________________

2021

- 109

______________________ On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in No. 2:20

- cv

- 01558

- RFB

VCF, Judge Richard F. Boulware

, II

.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

CSAA INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2021

- 1610

______________________ Case: 21-109 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 03/29/2021ARUNACHALAM v. CSAA INSURANCE GROUP 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in No. 2:20

- cv

- 01558

- RFB

- VCF, Judge Richard F. Boulware

, II.

______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________
Before R EYNA , T ARANTO , and C H EN , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
The magistrate judge assigned to Lakshmi Arunachalam’s case in t he United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

. Dr. Arunachalam asked the magistrate judge to reconsider that ruling (which was later denied)

, but she never filed an objection with the district court. Instead, Dr. Arunachalam filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for interlocutory appeal and sep arately file d a notice of appeal . She also moves for IFP.

W e dismiss both the petition and the appeal. To begin,

n o appeal can be brought under section 1292(b)

. T hat section authorizes a court of appeals to permit an appeal of an interlocutory order o nly after the district court has certified that the appeal presents a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinionand that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation

. And here, n o certification was issued by the district court that could give rise to such an interlocutory appeal.
Moreover, while the denial of an IFP motion is ordinarily an immediately appealable ruling

, Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal. , 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950)

, our jurisdiction is limited to the “final decision of a district
court
, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). Here, the IFP orders Dr. Case: 21-109 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 03/29/2021ARUNACHALAM v. CSAA INSURANCE GROUP 3

Arunachalam purports to appeal from are not appealable orders because they we re issued by a magistrate. “The law is settled that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates.” United States v. Renfro , 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980) . That is true even when the orders being appeal e d from are ones denying IFP. See Bryant v. Dekalb C n ty

. , No. 20

- 13227

- F,2020 WL 7023353, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 13, 2020) (dismissing appeal from magistrate’s denial of IFP as non

- final ). *
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) Th ese matter s are dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

March 29 , 2021 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

s 31

* Section 636(c) of title 28 of the U.S. Code provides a limited exception to th e general rule of no direct appealability, stat ing , in relevant part, that “[u]pon the consent of the parties,” the magistrate judge may “order the en tryof judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court.” § 636(c)(1). That exception, however, is not applicable to this matter. Case: 21-109 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 03/29/2021