Court Opinion

ID: 9901469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 20:00:49.104176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:33.953448
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12168     Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                            ____________________

                                  No. 23-12168
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       TAMIKO N. PEELE,
       individually on behalf of herself,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JONES DAY,
       and its associate BRIAN M. TRUJILLO, in
       their individual and oﬃcial capacity,
       OPENSKY,
       a division of Capital Bank, N.A.,
       EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC.,
       TRANS UNION, LLC,
       DOES 1-3,
USCA11 Case: 23-12168       Document: 21-1       Date Filed: 11/21/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12168

       inclusive in their individual capacity, et al.,

                                                         Defendants-Appellees.

                             ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14005-KMM
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Upon our review of the record and the parties’ responses to
       the jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of ju-
       risdiction.
              First, the notice of appeal is untimely to bring up for review
       the district court’s April 26, 2023 order dismissing Tamiko Peele’s
       complaint with leave to amend and any earlier order. The district
       court’s order became a final judgment on May 22, 2023—when the
       time for amendment expired—so the 30-day statutory time period
       required Peele to file a notice of appeal by June 21, 2023. See 28
       U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Schuurman v. Motor Ves-
       sel “Betty K V”, 798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that
       when a district court dismisses a complaint with leave to amend
       within a specified time period, the dismissal order becomes final
USCA11 Case: 23-12168      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 11/21/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-12168               Opinion of the Court                         3

       upon expiration of the time for amendment, and the time to appeal
       is measured from that date); Fogade v. ENB Revocable Tr.,
       263 F.3d 1274, 1286 n.9 (11th Cir. 2001). However, Peele did not
       file the notice of appeal until June 30, 2023, so it is untimely and
       cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction to review the district
       court’s April 26, 2023 order or any earlier order. See Green v. Drug
       Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010).
              Second, while Peele’s notice of appeal is timely as to the
       magistrate judge’s June 2, 2023 postjudgment order, we lack juris-
       diction to directly review a magistrate judge’s order. See Donovan
       v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (ex-
       plaining that a magistrate judge’s orders issued pursuant to
       28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not final and may not be appealed until ren-
       dered final by a district court); United States v. Schultz,
       565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). Peele did not object to the
       magistrate judge’s order or otherwise ask the district court to re-
       view it, so we lack jurisdiction to consider it now. See id.