Court Opinion

ID: 9404327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 19:01:20.550143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.196956
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10778    Document: 10-1     Date Filed: 06/22/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10778
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       HECTOR ALVAREZ,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       HAMILTON WR WARDEN,
       ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA,

                                                Respondents-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00117-LCB-HNJ
USCA11 Case: 23-10778      Document: 10-1       Date Filed: 06/22/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10778

                            ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Hector Alvarez appeals from the magistrate judge’s January
       10, 2023, report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending
       that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
       § 2254, be dismissed. Because the R&R had not been rendered final
       by the district court at the time of the filing of the notice of appeal,
       it was not directly appealable. See United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d
       1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that we lack jurisdiction to hear
       appeals directly from magistrate judges); McNab v. J & J Marine,
       Inc., 240 F.3d 1326, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2001) (explaining that, absent
       consent to adjudication by a magistrate judge, decisions by a mag-
       istrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not final orders and
       may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court); see also
       Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314
       (11th Cir. 2014). Furthermore, the district court’s subsequent
       adoption of the magistrate judge’s R&R did not cure the premature
       notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148
       F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998) (noting that the court’s subsequent
       adoption of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation does
       not cure the premature notice of appeal); Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd.
       of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998) (explaining that
       a notice of appeal must designate an already existing judgment or
       order, not one that is merely expected to be entered).
USCA11 Case: 23-10778     Document: 10-1     Date Filed: 06/22/2023   Page: 3 of 3

       23-10778              Opinion of the Court                       3

             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.