Jerome Coggins v. Warden

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: September 4, 2025
• Docket: 25-12028
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12028 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 09/04/2025 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12028 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JEROME COGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus

WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-00873-JPB ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Jerome Coggins, pro se, appears to seek review of the magis- trate judge’s April 16, 2025 order and final report and USCA11 Case: 25-12028 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 09/04/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12028

recommendation (“R&R”), which granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denial of a certificate of appealability. The magistrate judge’s recommendations were not final and appealable because the district court had not adopted the R&R or rendered it final when Coggins appealed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to “final decisions of the district courts”); Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998) (explaining that a magis- trate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final or immediately appealable). Even if the district court sub- sequently adopted the R&R, that would not cure Coggins’s prem- ature notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego, 148 F.3d at 1273. Addition- ally, Coggins lacks standing to challenge the portion of the ruling granting him leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it 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).