Filed: Jul. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER CLAY D. LAND , District Judge . Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion of Certificate of Appealability and Denying Leave to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis." (ECF No. 92.) This motion lacks any content other than citations to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3 and 5. Mot. of COA 1. Those rules explain the proper procedure for appealing as of right and by permission and are otherwise inapplicable to district court proceedings. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 5
Summary: ORDER CLAY D. LAND , District Judge . Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion of Certificate of Appealability and Denying Leave to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis." (ECF No. 92.) This motion lacks any content other than citations to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3 and 5. Mot. of COA 1. Those rules explain the proper procedure for appealing as of right and by permission and are otherwise inapplicable to district court proceedings. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 5...
More
ORDER
CLAY D. LAND, District Judge.
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion of Certificate of Appealability and Denying Leave to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis." (ECF No. 92.) This motion lacks any content other than citations to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3 and 5. Mot. of COA 1. Those rules explain the proper procedure for appealing as of right and by permission and are otherwise inapplicable to district court proceedings. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 5. It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to appeal an unspecified order to the Eleventh Circuit but is unsure if he may appeal by right or must first seek leave of court.1
The only order from which Plaintiff may be reasonably seeking to appeal is an order entered by the magistrate judge on August 27, 2015, denying Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and finding as moot his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.2 Am. Order 1-2, Aug. 27, 2015, ECF No. 90. Plaintiff cannot pursue an appeal of this order to the Eleventh Circuit. See, e.g., Thomas v. Bank of Am., N.A., 557 F. App'x 873, 875 (11th Cir. 2014) ("[The Eleventh Circuit] lack[s] jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrate judges."). Instead, Plaintiff must file an appeal or objection to the district judge within fourteen days of the date of the contested order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) ("A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.").
Plaintiff did not file his Motion of Certificate of Appealability until October 14, 2015, and thus did not timely object to the magistrate judge's order. Mot. of COA 1. Regardless, Plaintiff fails to provide any argument, factual or legal, to show that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Plaintiff's untimely objections are without merit and his motion (ECF No. 92) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
