Richard Harris v. Goodwin, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12280
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
RICHARD HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GOODWIN,
Assistant Warden,
FOSTER,
C.O.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12280 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12280
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-01155-MMH-JBT
____________________
Before WILSON , L UCK , and L AGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
tion. Richard Harris appeals from the magistrate judge’s June 20,
2023 order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and
service by publication and to condemn the defendant’s property.
However, we lack jurisdiction to directly review a magistrate
judge’s order, and an appeal from such an order must be taken to
the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete
Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that magis-
trate judge orders issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not final
and may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court);
United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting
that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals di-
rectly from magistrate judges).
Even if the district judge had entered an order affirming the
magistrate judge’s rulings, those rulings are not final in that they
did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Ach-
eron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating
that a final order ends litigation on the merits and leaves nothing
for the court to do but execute its judgment). And the June 20
USCA11 Case: 23-12280 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-12280 Opinion of the Court 3
order did not dispose of a claim or party, so it could not have been
certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246
(11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all
claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable
absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)).
All pending motions are denied as moot. No petition for re-
hearing 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: 23-12280 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --