Court Opinion

ID: 9841176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 16:00:47.821002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:39:49.377460
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12559    Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 09/21/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12559
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       RICHARD HARRIS,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JAMES COTTE,
       JOHN DOE,
       GILBERT NOE,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 23-12559      Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 09/21/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12559

                    D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00646-SPC-NPM
                           ____________________

       Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Richard Harris appeals from a magistrate judge’s July 25, 2023
       order denying his motions for appointment of counsel. However,
       we lack jurisdiction to directly review magistrate judge orders, as
       an appeal from such an order must be taken to the district court
       before the appellant files his notice of appeal. See United States
       v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, the
       district court’s August 15, 2023 order refusing to vacate the July 25
       magistrate judge order does not cure the premature notice of ap-
       peal because the August 15 order was entered after Harris’s August
       2 notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148
       F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998).
             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.