Bobby Rutledge v. Lt Sales

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-11450

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

BOBBY RUTLEDGE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus LT SALES,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:25-cv-00073-WMR

____________________

2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11450

Before GRANT, BRASHER, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction . Bobby Rutledge, proceeding pro se, appeals from the magistrate judge’s April 4, 2025, order and final report and recommendation , which granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended that his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation on a dispositive matter that has not been adopted or otherwise rendered final by the district court at the time the notice of appeal is filed is not final and appealable. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1), 1291. The district court’s subsequent adoption of the recommendation did not cure Rutledge’s premature notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego, 148 F.3d at 1273. Additionally, Rutledge lacks standing to challenge the magistrate judge’s grant of his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, because that ruling did not injure him in any way. See Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1353–54 (11th Cir. 2003); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barrow, 29 F.4th 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2022).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 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.