Court Opinion

ID: 9943537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 19:01:28.123236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:18.410326
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13944    Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 02/23/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13944
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DAMEON LASHAWN NIX,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00215-CLM-SGC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13944         Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 02/23/2024          Page: 2 of 3

       2                          Opinion of the Court                        22-13944

       Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Dameon Nix appeals his convictions for bank robbery by
       force or violence and discharging a firearm during and in relation
       to a crime of violence. He argues that a magistrate judge erred in
       finding him competent to stand trial because more evaluation was
       required.
               A district court’s decision on a competency issue is a factual
       determination that we ordinarily review for clear error. United
       States v. Hogan, 986 F.2d 1364, 1371 (11th Cir. 1993). But we lack
       jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the merits of a magistrate judge’s
       ruling where the district court had no opportunity to effectively
       review the ruling. United States v. Shultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359–60
       (11th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500
       (5th Cir. 1980) (“The law is settled that appellate courts are without
       jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates.”). 1
       When a party fails to challenge a magistrate judge’s order in the
       district court, the district court has no opportunity to effectively
       review the magistrate judge’s ruling. Shultz, 565 F.3d at 1359; see
       also United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1352 (11th Cir. 2006) (“We

       1 Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981, are binding as precedent

       in the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207
       (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 22-13944     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 02/23/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       22-13944              Opinion of the Court                        3

       lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s order because
       Brown never appealed the ruling to the district court”).
               Here, the record does not indicate that Nix objected to or
       otherwise appealed to the district court the magistrate judge’s or-
       der finding that he was competent to stand trial. As such, the dis-
       trict court had no opportunity to review the magistrate judge’s rul-
       ing, and we do not have jurisdiction to review this challenge. This
       appeal is therefore DISMISSED.