Court Opinion

ID: 9905592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 20:00:58.39591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:49.590897
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12299    Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 11/29/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12299
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       SHAWN MICHAEL CHALIFOUX,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cr-00015-CEM-LHP-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12299     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 11/29/2023    Page: 2 of 2

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 23-12299

       Before LUCK, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Shawn Chalifoux appeals directly from a magistrate judge’s
       order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for
       competency restoration treatment. However, we lack jurisdiction
       to directly review the magistrate judge’s order, as it must ﬁrst be
       challenged in, and rendered ﬁnal by, the district court. See
       28 U.S.C. § 1291; Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061,
       1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that magistrate judge orders
       issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not ﬁnal and may not be
       appealed until rendered ﬁnal by a district court); United States v.
       Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that appellate
       courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from mag-
       istrate judges).
              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.