USCA11 Case: 23-11676 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11676
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PRISCILLA ANN ELLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00320-SDM-MRM-3
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11676 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11676
Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Priscilla Ellis appeals from the district court’s Jan-
uary 23, 2023 order denying her motion for compassionate release
and a magistrate judge’s May 2, 2023 report and recommendation
that the district court deny Ellis’s motion to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). First, to the extent that Ellis challenges the
January 23, 2023 order, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, as du-
plicative of Ellis’s pending appeal from the January 23, 2023 order,
docketed in Appeal No. 23-10437. See Colo. River Water Conservation
Dist. v. United States,
424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976); I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jef-
ferson Nat’l Bank,
793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that
it is well established that federal courts avoid duplicative litigation
as a general principle in order to conserve judicial resources); see
also United States v. Arlt,
567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding
that an appellant “is not entitled to two appeals”).
Second, to the extent that Ellis challenges the magistrate
judge’s May 2, 2023 report and recommendation, this appeal is
DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. The district court
had not adopted or otherwise rendered the report and recommen-
dation final by the time Ellis filed the instant notice of appeal and
we cannot hear appeals directly from such orders. See Donovan v.
Sarasota Concrete Co.,
693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982); See
United States v. Schultz,
565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (explain-
ing that we lack jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal
USCA11 Case: 23-11676 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 07/05/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-11676 Opinion of the Court 3
magistrate judges). Moreover, the district court’s subsequent
adoption of the report and recommendation does not serve to cure
this premature notice of appeal. See Robinson v. Tanner,
798 F.2d
1378, 1385 (11th Cir. 1986); Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of
Court,
148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998). Regardless, even if the
district court had adopted the report and recommendation before
Ellis filed the instant notice of appeal, an order denying a motion
to proceed IFP on appeal is not a final or otherwise appealable or-
der. See
28 U.S.C. § 1291; Gomez v. United States,
245 F.2d 346, 347
(5th Cir. 1957) (stating that an order denying a motion to appeal in
forma pauperis is not a final, appealable order). The proper proce-
dure for review of such an order is to renew the motion before this
Court, which Ellis has done in Appeal No. 23-10437. See Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(5) & advisory committee notes (1967). Accordingly,
we lack jurisdiction to review the report and recommendation.
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.
