Court Opinion

ID: 9838544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 19:01:58.580002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.955751
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12301    Document: 12-1     Date Filed: 09/06/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12301
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       FERRELL W. WALKER, JR.,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       EQUIFAX INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-01045-ELR-JKL
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12301      Document: 12-1     Date Filed: 09/06/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12301

       Before ROSENBAUM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Appellant seeks review of the magistrate judge’s July 6, 2023
       order granting Appellee’s motion to compel his deposition. How-
       ever, we lack jurisdiction to directly review a magistrate judge’s
       order, as an appeal from such an order must be taken to the district
       court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693
       F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Schultz,
       565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). Even if the district court ulti-
       mately affirms the order, the subsequent affirmance would not
       cure the premature notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua
       Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that
       a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was not final and
       appealable where the district court had not adopted it before the
       notice of appeal was filed).
              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.