Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Angela Perez-Priego v. Alachua County Clerk of Court
148 F.3d 1272
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1998-08-04
- Topic
- litigation
ruling that "the report and recommendation is not final and appealable” and appeal could not be perfected | holding that a magistrate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and immedi- ately appealable | holding that a district court’s subsequent adoption of a recommendation cannot cure a premature appeal | holding that a magistrate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and immediately appeala- ble | holding that a magistrate judge’s recommendation that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and immediately appealable | holding that a district court’s subsequent adoption of a recommendation cannot cure a premature appeal | holding that a magistrate judge’s recommendation that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and immediately appealable | holding that a magistrate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and appeala- ble | holding that magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was not final and appealable where the district court had not adopted it before the notice of appeal was filed | holding that a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was not final and appealable where the district court had not adopted it before the notice of appeal was filed | holding that a magistrate judge’s R&R was not final and ap- pealable where the district court had not adopted it before the no- tice of appeal was filed | holding that a magistrate judge’s report and rec- ommendation was not final and appealable where the district court had not adopted it before the notice of appeal was filed | stating that a magistrate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is neither final nor appealable | providing that a magistrate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and immediately appealable | explaining that an R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final | explaining that a magis- trate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final or immediately appealable | noting that the court’s subsequent adoption of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation does not cure the premature notice of appeal | explaining that a magistrate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final or immedi- ately appealable | providing that a magistrate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and immediately appealable | providing that a magis- trate judge’s R&R that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and immediately appealable | noting that the court’s subsequent adoption of a magistrate judge’s R&R does not cure the premature notice of appeal | explaining that such an R&R is not final and appealable and that subsequent adoption does not cure a premature notice of appeal | dismissing appeal when parties appealed from magistrate’s report and recommendation that the district court had not yet adopted when the notice of appeal was filed | stating a report and recommendation that has not yet been adopted by the district court is not final and appealable | raising issue of jurisdiction sua sponte in appeal from magistrate judge’s report | hold- ing that a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that has not been adopted by the district court is not final and immediately appealable
Citator
- Cited by
- 31 opinions
Angela Perez-Priego appeals the magistrate judge’s report recommending that her civil-rights complaint be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®.
The magistrate’s report and recommendation had not been adopted by the district court at the time that Perez-Priego filed the notice of appeal and therefore the report and recommendation is not final and appeal-able. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir.1982). Likewise, Perez-Priego’s notice of appeal was not valid to perfect the appeal as of the date of the district court’s judgment. See FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269, 276, 111 S.Ct. 648, 653, 112 L.Ed.2d 743 (1991); Billingsley v. Jefferson County, 953 F.2d 1351, 1353-54 (11th Cir.1992). .Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 1
. We examine our jurisdiction sua sponte even though neither party has raised the issue.