Court Opinion

ID: 9911872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 22:01:14.970245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:50.005565
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13767    Document: 10-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-13767
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       KELVIN B. STEPHENS,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       HOMEWOOD SUITES,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-03273-MHC
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13767      Document: 10-1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-13767

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Kelvin Stephens, proceeding pro se, appeals first from a mag-
       istrate judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommend-
       ing that his case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to com-
       ply with a court order. We lack jurisdiction to review the R&R
       because it was not rendered final by the district judge at the time
       Stephens filed his notice of appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1), 1291;
       Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th
       Cir. 1998).
              Stephens also appeals, via an amended notice of appeal,
       from the district judge’s November 22, 2023 order denying his ap-
       plication to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. Such rul-
       ings are not appealable, as the proper procedure is to file in the ap-
       pellate court a motion to proceed IFP on appeal. See Fed. R. App.
       P. 24(a)(5); Gomez v. United States, 245 F.2d 346, 347 (5th Cir. 1957).
       We thus also lack jurisdiction to review that order.
             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.