Henderson v. Carr

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION TAVARRES HENDERSON, ) a.k.a. Juhiiv Ali Muhammed, ) Plaintiff, V. CV 121-179 ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRISTOPHER M. CARR; GEORGIA DEPT OF PUBLIC _) SAFETY; THERMAL CERANMIC ) PROPANE INC.; and, DISTRICT ) ATTORNEY JOSHUA B. SMITH, ) Defendants.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), to which no objections have been filed. Notably, Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal from the R&R, a nonfinal order. (Doc. no. 6; see doc. no. 4.) An appeal taken, as here, from a non-appealable order, does not divest the district court of its jurisdiction over the matter. United States v. Riolo, 398 F. App’x 568, 571 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689, 691 (Sth Cir. 1979)(en banc)); see_also Garcia v. JP Morgan Chase, No. 1:11-CV-2149-AT, 2012 WL 13008803, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2012). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (doc. no. 2), DENIES

Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, (doc. no. 3), DISMISSES this case without prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the claims raised in this lawsuit, he must initiate a new lawsuit, which would require submission of a new complaint. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). SO ORDERED this _/ day of January, 2022, at Augusta, Georgia.

MEL, fAHC J. RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE _ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA