Richard Harris v. Goodwin ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 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    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-12280

Filed Date: 9/12/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/12/2023