Richard Harris v. James Cotte

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12559

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

RICHARD HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAMES COTTE, JOHN DOE, GILBERT NOE,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

2

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12559

D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00646-SPC-NPM

____________________

Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction . Richard Harris appeals from a magistrate judge’s July 25, 2023 order denying his motions for appointment of counsel. However, we lack jurisdiction to directly review magistrate judge orders, as an appeal from such an order must be taken to the district court before the appellant files his notice of appeal. See United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, the district court’s August 15, 2023 order refusing to vacate the July 25 magistrate judge order does not cure the premature notice of appeal because the August 15 order was entered after Harris’s August 2 notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 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.