USCA11 Case: 23-12168 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-12168 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ TAMIKO N. PEELE, individually on behalf of herself, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JONES DAY, and its associate BRIAN M. TRUJILLO, in their individual and official capacity, OPENSKY, a division of Capital Bank, N.A., EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC., TRANS UNION, LLC, DOES 1-3, USCA11 Case: 23-12168 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12168 inclusive in their individual capacity, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14005-KMM ____________________ Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Upon our review of the record and the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of ju- risdiction.

First, the notice of appeal is untimely to bring up for review the district court’s April 26, 2023 order dismissing Tamiko Peele’s complaint with leave to amend and any earlier order. The district court’s order became a final judgment on May 22, 2023—when the time for amendment expired—so the 30-day statutory time period required Peele to file a notice of appeal by June 21, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Schuurman v. Motor Ves- sel “Betty K V”, 798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that when a district court dismisses a complaint with leave to amend within a specified time period, the dismissal order becomes final USCA11 Case: 23-12168 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 Page: 3 of 3

23-12168 Opinion of the Court 3 upon expiration of the time for amendment, and the time to appeal is measured from that date); Fogade v. ENB Revocable Tr., 263 F.3d 1274, 1286 n.9 (11th Cir. 2001). However, Peele did not file the notice of appeal until June 30, 2023, so it is untimely and cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s April 26, 2023 order or any earlier order. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010).

Second, while Peele’s notice of appeal is timely as to the magistrate judge’s June 2, 2023 postjudgment order, we lack juris- diction to directly review a magistrate judge’s order. See Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (ex- plaining that a magistrate judge’s orders issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not final and may not be appealed until ren- dered final by a district court); United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). Peele did not object to the magistrate judge’s order or otherwise ask the district court to re- view it, so we lack jurisdiction to consider it now. See id.