Court Opinion

ID: 9909937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 17:01:26.805504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:22.958200
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13437   Document: 5-1     Date Filed: 12/14/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-13437
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      FP RIVERDALE, LLC,
      FAROS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC,
                                                   Plaintiﬀs-Appellees,
      versus
      THELIS ADKINS,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant,

      AND ALL OTHERS,

                                                           Defendant.
USCA11 Case: 23-13437     Document: 5-1     Date Filed: 12/14/2023     Page: 2 of 2

      2                      Opinion of the Court                23-13437

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-04173-JPB
                          ____________________

      Before BRANCH, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
             This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. Thelis Adkins appeals, pro se, from a magistrate judge’s Sep-
      tember 19, 2023, report and recommendation that Adkins’s action
      be remanded to state court. The magistrate judge’s recommenda-
      tion, however, is not final or appealable to this Court, as an appeal
      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 adopts the report and recom-
      mendation, that would not cure Adkins’s premature notice of ap-
      peal. 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.