Court Opinion

ID: 9880692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 15:01:11.074282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:15.681385
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12197    Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12197
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       FE'ANAH BENT MARYAM,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       CAPSULE CORPORATION,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-00975-SDG-JKL
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12197     Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023    Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-12197

       Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Appellant seeks to appeal from a magistrate judge’s (1) paper-
       less May 18 and 30, 2023 orders granting a defendant’s motions for
       extensions of time to respond to the complaint; (2) June 7, 2023
       denial of her motion to strike; and (3) June 15, 2023 order instruct-
       ing her to amend her complaint. However, unless the parties con-
       sent to a magistrate judge conducting the entire proceeding, we
       lack jurisdiction to directly review magistrate judge orders, as an
       appeal from such an order must be taken to the district court. See
       United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009); 28
       U.S.C. § 636(c). It does not appear that the parties have consented
       to the magistrate judge conducting the entire proceeding in this
       case. Furthermore, even if the district court ultimately affirms the
       orders, the subsequent affirmance would not cure the premature
       notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148
       F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998).
              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.