USCA11 Case: 23-12168 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12168
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
TAMIKO N. PEELE,
individually on behalf of herself,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JONES DAY,
and its associate BRIAN M. TRUJILLO, in
their individual and official capacity,
OPENSKY,
a division of Capital Bank, N.A.,
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC.,
TRANS UNION, LLC,
DOES 1-3,
USCA11 Case: 23-12168 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12168
inclusive in their individual capacity, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14005-KMM
____________________
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon our review of the record and the parties’ responses to
the jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of ju-
risdiction.
First, the notice of appeal is untimely to bring up for review
the district court’s April 26, 2023 order dismissing Tamiko Peele’s
complaint with leave to amend and any earlier order. The district
court’s order became a final judgment on May 22, 2023—when the
time for amendment expired—so the 30-day statutory time period
required Peele to file a notice of appeal by June 21, 2023. See
28
U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Schuurman v. Motor Ves-
sel “Betty K V”,
798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that
when a district court dismisses a complaint with leave to amend
within a specified time period, the dismissal order becomes final
USCA11 Case: 23-12168 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-12168 Opinion of the Court 3
upon expiration of the time for amendment, and the time to appeal
is measured from that date); Fogade v. ENB Revocable Tr.,
263 F.3d 1274, 1286 n.9 (11th Cir. 2001). However, Peele did not
file the notice of appeal until June 30, 2023, so it is untimely and
cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction to review the district
court’s April 26, 2023 order or any earlier order. See Green v. Drug
Enf’t Admin.,
606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010).
Second, while Peele’s notice of appeal is timely as to the
magistrate judge’s June 2, 2023 postjudgment order, we lack juris-
diction to directly review a magistrate judge’s order. See Donovan
v. Sarasota Concrete Co.,
693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (ex-
plaining that a magistrate judge’s orders issued pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not final and may not be appealed until ren-
dered final by a district court); United States v. Schultz,
565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). Peele did not object to the
magistrate judge’s order or otherwise ask the district court to re-
view it, so we lack jurisdiction to consider it now. See
id.
