John Williams v. Richard Sullivan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 8, 2025
• Docket: 25-11044
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-11044 Document: 4-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-11044 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JOHN T. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RICHARD SULLIVAN, Former U.S. District Judge, Now U.S. Circuit Judge, UNKNOWN U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE AGENTS, UNKNOWN FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, (FBI) AGENTS, UNKNOWN U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS, UNKNOWN EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR, ASSET FORFEITURE (EOAF) OFFICIALS, et al., USCA11 Case: 25-11044 Document: 4-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11044

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-01319-MHC ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, ABUDU, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. John Williams, proceedings pro se, appeals from the magis- trate judge’s March 17, 2025, order, which granted Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended that his complaint be dismissed as frivolous and that the filing injunction against him be expanded. A magistrate judge’s recommendation on a dispositive mat- ter 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 dis- trict court’s subsequent adoption of the recommendation did not cure Williams’s premature notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego, 148 F.3d at 1273. Additionally, Williams 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. USCA11 Case: 25-11044 Document: 4-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-11044 Opinion of the Court 3

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). 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.