Court Opinion

ID: 9947249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 15:00:57.44451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:18.183584
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10286   Document: 11-1    Date Filed: 03/04/2024   Page: 1 of 2

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 24-10286
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       ROBERT A. AUSTIN,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       ELIZABETH ROSE MCHUGH,
       Magistrate,
       JAMES W. MCCANN,
       Judge,

                                                Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 24-10286      Document: 11-1       Date Filed: 03/04/2024     Page: 2 of 2

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  24-10286

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14370-AMC
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Robert Allen Austin, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dis-
       trict court’s order dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Austin’s
       motion for relief under Rule 60, which was his first post-judgment
       motion challenging the dismissal, tolled the appeal period, such
       that it ran from the entry of the district court’s paperless order
       denying his motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (providing that
       the time to file an appeal runs from the entry of the order disposing
       of the last such remaining motion). Because that paperless order
       was entered on December 11, 2023, the 30-day statutory time limit
       required him to file a notice of appeal on or before January 10, 2024.
       See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A),
       (4)(A). However, Austin did not file his notice of appeal until Jan-
       uary 26, 2024.
               Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot in-
       voke our appellate jurisdiction. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous.
       Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017). 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.