Richard Harris v. James Cotte, et al, No. 23-12559 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-12559 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-12559 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ RICHARD HARRIS, Plainti -Appellant, versus JAMES COTTE, JOHN DOE, GILBERT NOE, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida USCA11 Case: 23-12559 2 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 2 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
