Fe'Anah Bent Maryam v. Capsule Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: September 28, 2023
• Docket: 23-12197
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-12197 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12197 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

FE'ANAH BENT MARYAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CAPSULE CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-00975-SDG-JKL ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-12197 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12197

Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Appellant seeks to appeal from a magistrate judge’s (1) paper- less May 18 and 30, 2023 orders granting a defendant’s motions for extensions of time to respond to the complaint; (2) June 7, 2023 denial of her motion to strike; and (3) June 15, 2023 order instruct- ing her to amend her complaint. However, unless the parties con- sent to a magistrate judge conducting the entire proceeding, we lack jurisdiction to directly review magistrate judge orders, as an appeal from such an order must be taken to the district court. See United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). It does not appear that the parties have consented to the magistrate judge conducting the entire proceeding in this case. Furthermore, even if the district court ultimately affirms the orders, the subsequent affirmance would not cure the premature notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998). 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.