Court Opinion

ID: 9891145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 17:01:07.052251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.633147
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13037    Document: 3-1     Date Filed: 10/17/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-13037
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      ANDRE MAURICE CARSTARPHEN, JR.,
                                                               Plaintiﬀ,
       ANDRE MAURICE CARSTARPHEN, SR.,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       KENNTH GILLESPIE,
       Detective at MPD,
       MATHEW SIMPSON,
       Prosecutor at Daphne Municipal Court,
       ROBERT H. SMITH,
       Former Judge,
       RONDELLA HOWARD,
USCA11 Case: 23-13037     Document: 3-1     Date Filed: 10/17/2023     Page: 2 of 2

      2                      Opinion of the Court                23-13037

       J. SINGHTON,

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00412-JB-N
                          ____________________

       Before WILSON, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
             This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. Andre Carstarphen, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals from the
      magistrate judge’s order directing the clerk to terminate him as a
      plaintiff. We lack jurisdiction to review the order because it has
      not been reviewed or 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); United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359
      (11th Cir. 2009).
              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.