Ahmed I. Issa v. Charles Meems

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2026
• Docket: 26-10150
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-10150 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10150 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

AHMED I. ISSA, Petitioner-Appellant, versus

WARDEN, SMITH STATE PRISON, Respondent, CHARLES MEEMS, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-04706-ELR ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 26-10150 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 26-10150

Ahmed Issa, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the petition be dismissed. Issa filed an application for a certificate of appealability that the district court construed as a notice of appeal. The district court then adopted the R&R and entered judgment. In his construed notice of appeal, Issa objected to the R&R “to secure appellate review in the Eleventh Circuit,” which we liberally construe as challenging the R&R. See Carmichael v. United States, 966 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (noting that we liberally construe pro se filings). The R&R was not final when Issa filed his notice of appeal because it did not end the litigation on the merits. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a final judgment leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute the judgment); Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that a magistrate judge’s recommendation that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and immediately appealable). The district court’s subsequent adoption of the R&R did not cure this defect. See Perez-Priego, 148 F.3d at 1273 (holding that a district court’s subsequent adoption of a recommendation cannot cure a premature appeal). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.