Court Opinion

ID: 9899646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 15:00:40.423381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:45.016351
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13035    Document: 16-1     Date Filed: 11/17/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13035
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       LOLA M. SMITH,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, US DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00333-RAH-CWB
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13035      Document: 16-1       Date Filed: 11/17/2023      Page: 2 of 2

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-13035

       Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of
       jurisdiction. Appellant Lola Smith seeks to appeal from a
       magistrate judge’s denial of her pleading styled “Request for
       Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts.” This Court’s appellate
       jurisdiction is limited to final decisions of the district courts. See 28
       U.S.C. § 1291. Accordingly, unless parties consent to a magistrate
       judge entering final judgment, we lack jurisdiction to directly
       review magistrate judge orders, as an appeal from such an order
       must be taken to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); 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). The
       parties here did not consent to the magistrate judge’s exercise of
       jurisdiction. Furthermore, even if the district court ultimately
       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).