Court Opinion

ID: 9406937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 13:00:42.542529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:34.235842
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11676   Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 07/05/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-11676
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
      versus
      PRISCILLA ANN ELLIS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Florida
                D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00320-SDM-MRM-3
                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11676        Document: 7-1       Date Filed: 07/05/2023      Page: 2 of 3

      2                         Opinion of the Court                    23-11676

      Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Appellant Priscilla Ellis appeals from the district court’s Jan-
       uary 23, 2023 order denying her motion for compassionate release
       and a magistrate judge’s May 2, 2023 report and recommendation
       that the district court deny Ellis’s motion to proceed on appeal in
       forma pauperis (“IFP”). First, to the extent that Ellis challenges the
       January 23, 2023 order, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, as du-
       plicative of Ellis’s pending appeal from the January 23, 2023 order,
       docketed in Appeal No. 23-10437. See Colo. River Water Conservation
       Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976); I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jef-
       ferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that
       it is well established that federal courts avoid duplicative litigation
       as a general principle in order to conserve judicial resources); see
       also United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding
       that an appellant “is not entitled to two appeals”).
              Second, to the extent that Ellis challenges the magistrate
       judge’s May 2, 2023 report and recommendation, this appeal is
       DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. The district court
       had not adopted or otherwise rendered the report and recommen-
       dation final by the time Ellis filed the instant notice of appeal and
       we cannot hear appeals directly from such orders. See Donovan v.
       Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982); See
       United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (explain-
       ing that we lack jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal
USCA11 Case: 23-11676     Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 07/05/2023    Page: 3 of 3

      23-11676              Opinion of the Court                        3

      magistrate judges). Moreover, the district court’s subsequent
      adoption of the report and recommendation does not serve to cure
      this premature notice of appeal. See Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d
      1378, 1385 (11th Cir. 1986); Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of
      Court, 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998). Regardless, even if the
      district court had adopted the report and recommendation before
      Ellis filed the instant notice of appeal, an order denying a motion
      to proceed IFP on appeal is not a final or otherwise appealable or-
      der. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Gomez v. United States, 245 F.2d 346, 347
      (5th Cir. 1957) (stating that an order denying a motion to appeal in
      forma pauperis is not a final, appealable order). The proper proce-
      dure for review of such an order is to renew the motion before this
      Court, which Ellis has done in Appeal No. 23-10437. See Fed. R.
      App. P. 24(a)(5) & advisory committee notes (1967). Accordingly,
      we lack jurisdiction to review the report and recommendation.
             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.