Justin Laster v. Georgia Department of Corrections

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: 25-11480
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-11480 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 07/09/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-11480 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JUSTIN LASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee,

MACON STATE PRISON,

Defendant.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-11480 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 07/09/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11480

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-00464-TES ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: On October 30, 2024, Justin Laster, proceeding pro se, filed a document in this Court, which we eventually construed as both an untimely notice of appeal from the district court’s September 2024 final order and judgment, and a motion to reopen the appeal period under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). We remanded the case to the district court to determine whether such relief was warranted, and the district court denied the construed motion. The district court then retransmitted another of Laster’s previous notices of appeal, along with its order denying Rule 4(a)(6) relief, among other documents, to us, initiating this appeal. Laster later filed his own notice of appeal of the district court’s order denying Rule 4(a)(6) relief, initiating appeal no. 25-11528. This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction because Laster did not file a notice of appeal to initiate it. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1)-(2); Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116, 125 (2017) (explaining that we “may not overlook the failure to file a notice of appeal”); Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[A] . . . properly filed notice of appeal is a manda- tory prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction.”). Nothing in this order USCA11 Case: 25-11480 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 07/09/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-11480 Opinion of the Court 3

affects our jurisdiction over appeal no. 25-11528, which was initi- ated by a notice of appeal Laster himself filed. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. 40-1 through 40-4 and all other applicable rules.