Robert A. Austin v. Elizabeth Rose McHugh, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10286
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
ROBERT A. AUSTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ELIZABETH ROSE MCHUGH,
Magistrate,
JAMES W. MCCANN,
Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 24-10286 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Page: 1 of 2

-- 1 of 2 --

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10286
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14370-AMC
____________________
Before JORDAN , JILL P RYOR , and N EWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
tion. Robert Allen Austin, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dis-
trict court’s order dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Austin’s
motion for relief under Rule 60, which was his first post-judgment
motion challenging the dismissal, tolled the appeal period, such
that it ran from the entry of the district court’s paperless order
denying his motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (providing that
the time to file an appeal runs from the entry of the order disposing
of the last such remaining motion). Because that paperless order
was entered on December 11, 2023, the 30-day statutory time limit
required him to file a notice of appeal on or before January 10, 2024.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A),
(4)(A). However, Austin did not file his notice of appeal until Jan-
uary 26, 2024.
Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot in-
voke our appellate jurisdiction. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous.
Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 21 (2017). 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.
USCA11 Case: 24-10286 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Page: 2 of 2

-- 2 of 2 --