Andrew Corpus v. Carrole Depass, et al
| ROBIN J. WILSON, Doctor, DONALD SAWYER, Doctor, CARROLE DEPASS, Doctor, OFFICE OF REGIONAL CONFLICT COUNSEL and ROBERT HINES, Counsel |
| ANDREW CORPUS |
| 20-10932 |
| March 5, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Andrew Corpus. [Entered: 04/30/2020 11:29 AM] |
| NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN Because the appeal is closed. Notice of receipt: Wants the court to call the prison as to Appellant Andrew Corpus. [Entered: 05/01/2020 11:23 AM] |
ORDER: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent that Andrew Corpus, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal a magistrate judges decision, we lack jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates. United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that a magistrates actions while proceeding under 636(b) are not final orders and may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court.). Furthermore, the district court has not entered a final or otherwise appealable order, and the court expressly declined to certify the appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). See 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000). No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules. (See order for complete text). BBM, JP and RJL [Entered: 04/24/2020 11:30 AM]
|
| Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Andrew Corpus. [Entered: 04/24/2020 03:44 PM] |
| MOTION to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Andrew Corpus. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [9065095-1] [Entered: 04/17/2020 03:19 PM] |
| NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN Case is closed. Notice of receipt: Request for documents as to Appellant Andrew Corpus. [Entered: 04/24/2020 03:47 PM] |
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Andrew Corpus. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP). Failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both. [Entered: 04/15/2020 09:54 AM] |
| The briefing schedule issued to Appellant Andrew Corpus is hereby rescinded for the following reason(s): Your motion for in forma pauperis has been denied.. When the above matter(s) is resolved, the clerk will issue a notice advising counsel and the parties of the new schedule for filing briefs in this appeal. [Entered: 03/31/2020 09:09 AM] |
| USDC order denying IFP as to Appellant Andrew Corpus was filed on 03/30/2020. Docket Entry 63. [Entered: 03/31/2020 08:48 AM] |
| NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN. No discernible relief sought Notice of receipt: The Court Order as to Appellant Andrew Corpus. [Entered: 04/01/2020 08:26 AM] |
| Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Robert Hines. On the same day the CIP is served, the party filing it must also complete the court's web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-2(b). [20-10932] (ECF: Eugenia Izmaylova) [Entered: 03/26/2020 01:16 PM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Eugenia Alexandra Izmaylova for Robert Hines. [20-10932] (ECF: Eugenia Izmaylova) [Entered: 03/18/2020 01:18 PM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Gregory A. Kummerlen for Depass and Sawyer Gregory A. Kummerlen for Carrole Depass and Donald Sawyer. [20-10932] (ECF: Gregory Kummerlen) [Entered: 03/18/2020 03:58 PM] |
| Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Gregory A. Kummerlen for Appellees Carrole Depass and Donald Sawyer. On the same day the CIP is served, the party filing it must also complete the court's web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-2(b). [20-10932] (ECF: Gregory Kummerlen) [Entered: 03/18/2020 04:00 PM] |
| USDC order granting IFP as to Appellant Andrew Corpus was filed on 06/20/2019. Docket Entry 16. [Entered: 03/12/2020 01:57 PM] |
| CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Andrew Corpus on 03/05/2020. Fee Status: IFP Granted. No hearings to be transcribed. The appellant's brief is due on or before 04/14/2020. Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 03/19/2020 as to Appellant Andrew Corpus. Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 04/02/2020 as to Appellees Carrole Depass and Robert Hines [Entered: 03/12/2020 01:54 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
ORDER: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent that Andrew Corpus, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal a magistrate judges decision, we lack jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates. United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that a magistrates actions while proceeding under 636(b) are not final orders and may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court.). Furthermore, the district court has not entered a final or otherwise appealable order, and the court expressly declined to certify the appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). See 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000). No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules. (See order for complete text). BBM, JP and RJL [Entered: 04/24/2020 11:30 AM]