Kenneth Doctor v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, et al, No. 24-10280 (11th Cir. 2024)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 24-10280 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10280 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ KENNETH DOCTOR, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00155-BJD-MCR USCA11 Case: 24-10280 2 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 2 24-10280 ____________________ Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Although Kenneth Doctor’s construed motion for reconsideration was timely to toll the time to appeal from the district court’s September 14, 2023 final judgment until the motion’s disposition, Doctor did not timely appeal. Because the district court denied the motion on October 17, 2023, the 30-day statutory time limit required Doctor to file a notice of appeal on or before November 16, 2023 to appeal the judgment or the October 17 order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, he did not file a notice of appeal until January 16, 2024, which is the date he provided the notice to prison officials for mailing. See Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014). Further, there is no basis in the record for relief under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6). Accordingly, the notice of appeal cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010). 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.