Court Opinion

ID: 9899114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 21:01:10.150172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:43.186652
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12091   Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-12091
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       GLEN DALE SPIVEY,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       LEONARD SCHIOFMAN,
       DHD Optometrist,
       ISAAC MOORE,
       Ophthalmologist,
       C. E. RICHARDSON,
       Medical Doctor Chief Health Oﬃcer,
       R. VIVAS,
       Medical Doctor Chief Health Oﬃcer,
       JOHN A. BENEKE,
USCA11 Case: 23-12091     Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-12091

       Medical Doctor Ophthalmologist, et al.,

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-00018-WS-MAF
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Liberally construing his notice of appeal, Glen Spivey appeals
       the district court’s March 20, 2023 order adopting the magistrate
       judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) and denying his first
       motion for reconsideration and the May 12, 2023 order denying his
       construed motion for reconsideration of the March 20 order. Un-
       der the prison mailbox rule, his notice of appeal is deemed filed on
       June 13, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c).
              The statutory time limit required Glen Spivey to file a notice
       of appeal from the March 20, 2023 order by April 19, 2023, which
       was 30 days after the district court entered that order. See id. R.
       4(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). Although Spivey filed objections to
       the R&R that the district court construed as a motion for
USCA11 Case: 23-12091       Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023      Page: 3 of 3

       23-12091                Opinion of the Court                           3

       reconsideration, that motion was untimely to toll the appeal period
       because it was not filed within 28 days of the March 20 order. See
       Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Thus, his June 13 notice of appeal
       was untimely as to the March 20 order.
               The statutory time limit required Spivey to file a notice of
       appeal from the May 12, 2023 order by June 12, 2023, which was
       the first business day after the 30-day period following the district
       court’s entry of that order. See id. R. 4(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(1)(C);
       28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). Thus, his notice of appeal also was untimely
       as to the June 12 order. Additionally, to the extent that Spivey’s
       notice of appeal may be construed as challenging any other district
       court orders, an appeal from any of those orders would also be un-
       timely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a).
               Finally, there is no basis in the record for relief under Federal
       Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6). Accordingly, the
       notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our appellate juris-
       diction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th
       Cir. 2010) (noting that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a
       civil case is a jurisdictional requirement, and we cannot entertain
       an appeal that is out of time).
             All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 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.