Court Opinion

ID: 9839184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 14:00:29.660885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:34.163660
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12280     Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 09/12/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                No. 23-12280
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

      RICHARD HARRIS,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      GOODWIN,
      Assistant Warden,
      FOSTER,
      C.O.,

                                                  Defendants-Appellees.

                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12280      Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 09/12/2023      Page: 2 of 3

      2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12280

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-01155-MMH-JBT
                          ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. Richard Harris appeals from the magistrate judge’s June 20,
      2023 order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and
      service by publication and to condemn the defendant’s property.
      However, we lack jurisdiction to directly review a magistrate
      judge’s order, and an appeal from such an order must be taken to
      the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete
      Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that magis-
      trate judge orders issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not ﬁnal
      and may not be appealed until rendered ﬁnal by a district court);
      United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting
      that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals di-
      rectly from magistrate judges).
             Even if the district judge had entered an order aﬃrming the
      magistrate judge’s rulings, those rulings are not ﬁnal in that they
      did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Ach-
      eron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating
      that a ﬁnal order ends litigation on the merits and leaves nothing
      for the court to do but execute its judgment). And the June 20
USCA11 Case: 23-12280     Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023     Page: 3 of 3

      23-12280               Opinion of the Court                         3

      order did not dispose of a claim or party, so it could not have been
      certiﬁed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Fed. R. Civ.
      P. 54(b); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246
      (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all
      claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable
      absent certiﬁcation pursuant to Rule 54(b)).
             All pending motions are denied as moot. No petition for re-
      hearing may be ﬁled unless it complies with the timing and other
      requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.