Court Opinion

ID: 9893084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 20:00:51.363667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:57.763153
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12730   Document: 9-1      Date Filed: 10/25/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-12730
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      ROBERT O. DINKINS,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      MS BARNETT T,
      USP ATL Medical Member,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-03230-LMM
USCA11 Case: 23-12730      Document: 9-1       Date Filed: 10/25/2023      Page: 2 of 2

      2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-12730

                            ____________________

      Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
             This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. Robert Dinkins, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
      from the magistrate judge’s final report and recommendation
      (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of his complaint. At the time of
      Dinkins’s appeal, deemed filed on July 31, 2023, the district court
      had not yet adopted the R&R, and thus, we lack jurisdiction to re-
      view it. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d
      1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014); Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct.,
      148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998). The district court’s later adop-
      tion of the R&R does not cure Dinkins’s premature notice of ap-
      peal. See Perez-Priego, 148 F.3d at 1273.
             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.