[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10837

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-62510-RNS

MARGARET JALLALI,

Plaintiff,

CYRUS A BISCHOFF,

Interested Party-Appellant,

versus

USA FUNDS, 

WEST ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees,

SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP,

Defendant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 28, 2014)

Case: 14-10837 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before PRYOR, MARTIN and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Cyrus Bischoff, former counsel for the plaintiff in the underlying district 

court action, appeals the district court’s affirmance of the magistrate judge’s order 

awarding defendants USA Funds and West Asset Management, Inc. sanctions 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Here, Bischoff timely appealed the magistrate

judge’s sanctions order to the district court, contending that the magistrate judge 

lacked jurisdiction to enter the order because he had withdrawn from the case. The 

district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s sanction. Because the magistrate 

judge had jurisdiction to award sanctions, we affirm.

On appeal, Bischoff repeats his contention that the magistrate judge lacked 

jurisdiction to award sanctions because the district court had already granted 

Bischoff’s request to withdraw as an attorney in the case.1

 (Appellant’s Br. at 23.) 

It is unclear what type of jurisdiction Bischoff contends the court lacked. His 

argument appears to be that because he withdrew from the case, the district court 

no longer had statutory authority to sanction him under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. So, 

 

1 Bischoff presents a variety of other arguments. However, this is the only issue Bischoff 

objected to before the district court. When a magistrate judge considers non-dispositive matters, 

a party may not assign as error on appeal a defect not timely objected to before the district court. 

Smith v. School Bd. of Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1365. Accordingly, Bischoff’s other 

contentions are not preserved.

Case: 14-10837 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Bischoff’s challenge is not to subject-matter or personal jurisdiction, but rather to 

the district court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1927—that is jurisdiction in a 

generic sense.

“We review a district court's sanctions order for abuse of discretion.” 

Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 2007). 

“A decision that is contrary to the law plainly is an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 

1238.

28 U.S.C. § 1927 allows a district court to sanction “[a]ny attorney or other 

person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory 

thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and 

vexatiously . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (emphasis added). Bischoff contends that this 

statute could not be applied once he withdrew from the case. However, we can 

discern no such limitation from the statute. And, Bischoff provides no reason or 

authority for imposing such a limitation. To the contrary, the statute plainly 

applies to “any attorney . . . admitted to conduct cases,” and is not limited to the 

current attorney of record at the time a sanction is made. Id.

Accordingly, we find no error and affirm the district court’s affirmance of 

the magistrate judge’s order.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 14-10837 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 3 of 3