USA v. Dameon Nix

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13944
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAMEON LASHAWN NIX,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00215-CLM-SGC-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13944 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13944
Before R OSENBAUM , NEWSOM , and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dameon Nix appeals his convictions for bank robbery by
force or violence and discharging a firearm during and in relation
to a crime of violence. He argues that a magistrate judge erred in
finding him competent to stand trial because more evaluation was
required.
A district court’s decision on a competency issue is a factual
determination that we ordinarily review for clear error. United
States v. Hogan, 986 F.2d 1364, 1371 (11th Cir. 1993). But we lack
jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the merits of a magistrate judge’s
ruling where the district court had no opportunity to effectively
review the ruling. United States v. Shultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359–60
(11th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500
(5th Cir. 1980) (“The law is settled that appellate courts are without
jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates.”).1
When a party fails to challenge a magistrate judge’s order in the
district court, the district court has no opportunity to effectively
review the magistrate judge’s ruling. Shultz, 565 F.3d at 1359; see
also United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1352 (11th Cir. 2006) (“We
1 Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981, are binding as precedent
in the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207
(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 22-13944 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-13944 Opinion of the Court 3
lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s order because
Brown never appealed the ruling to the district court”).
Here, the record does not indicate that Nix objected to or
otherwise appealed to the district court the magistrate judge’s or-
der finding that he was competent to stand trial. As such, the dis-
trict court had no opportunity to review the magistrate judge’s rul-
ing, and we do not have jurisdiction to review this challenge. This
appeal is therefore DISMISSED.
USCA11 Case: 22-13944 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --