Court Opinion

ID: 9943372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 15:01:07.645219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:58.248356
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10157    Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 02/23/2024   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 24-10157
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       RONALD GEDDIS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00056-MSS-AEP-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 24-10157       Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024      Page: 2 of 2

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   24-10157

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Ronald Geddis appeals from a magistrate judge’s January 5,
       2024, order allowing Geddis to retrieve non-contraband materials
       from his phone and a magistrate judge’s January 5, 2024, paperless
       order denying his motion to strike a government filing. The or-
       ders, however, are not final or appealable to this Court, as an ap-
       peal from a magistrate judge order must be taken to the district
       court. See United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir.
       2009). Even if the district judge ultimately affirms the orders, the
       subsequent affirmances would not cure Geddis’s premature notice
       of appeal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272,
       1273 (11th Cir. 1998).
              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.