Court Opinion

ID: 9412677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 14:01:45.320879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:33.603373
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11870    Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 08/01/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11870
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DANIEL ERIC COBBLE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 5:14-cr-00077-CDL-CHW-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11870      Document: 13-1       Date Filed: 08/01/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11870

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Daniel Eric Cobble appeals from the magistrate judge’s May
       16, 2023 order denying his motions for postjudgment criminal re-
       lief. However, we lack jurisdiction to directly review a magistrate
       judge’s order, as an appeal from such an order must be taken to the
       district court first. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 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). Even if the district court ulti-
       mately overrules Cobble’s objections and affirms the order, the
       subsequent affirmance would not cure the premature notice of ap-
       peal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272,
       1273 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that magistrate judge’s report and
       recommendation was not final and appealable where the district
       court had not adopted it before the notice of appeal was filed).
              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.