Court Opinion

ID: 9406062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 18:01:03.909799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.707665
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11318     Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 06/29/2023    Page: 1 of 2

                                                      [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-11318
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       IRA KLEIMAN,
       as the Personal Representative of the Estate
       of David Kleiman,
       W&K INFO DEFENSE RESEARCH, LLC,
                                                       Plaintiﬀs-Appellees,
       versus
       CRAIG WRIGHT,

                                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11318      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 06/29/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11318

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-80176-BB
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion.
              Craig Wright appeals a magistrate judge’s order denying his
       post-judgment motions to disqualify counsel for plaintiffs. How-
       ever, Wright did not appeal the magistrate judge’s order to the dis-
       trict court, and the district court did not render it final. See
       28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061,
       1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that when a magistrate judge
       is proceeding under the supervision of a district court, under
       28 U.S.C. § 636(b), its actions “are not final orders and may not be
       appealed until rendered final by a district court”); United States v.
       Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that a party
       must first appeal a magistrate judge’s order to the district court,
       and the court of appeals is without jurisdiction to hear appeals di-
       rectly from magistrate judges, even in an appeal from the final
       judgment).
              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.