Bobby Rutledge v. Lt Sales

USCA11 Case: 25-11450 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/31/2025 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 25-11450

Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

BOBBY RUTLEDGE,

Petitioner-Appellant, versus LT SALES,

Respondent-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:25-cv-00073-WMR

____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-11450 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/31/2025 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11450 Before GRANT, BRASHER, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Bobby Rutledge, proceeding pro se, appeals from the magis- trate judge’s April 4, 2025, order and final report and recommenda- tion, which granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and rec- ommended that his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas cor- pus be dismissed.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation on a dispositive mat- ter that has not been adopted or otherwise rendered final by the district court at the time the notice of appeal is filed is not final and appealable. See Perez-Priego v. Alachua Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 148 F.3d 1272, 1273 (11th Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1), 1291. The dis- trict court’s subsequent adoption of the recommendation did not cure Rutledge’s premature notice of appeal. See Perez-Priego, 148 F.3d at 1273. Additionally, Rutledge lacks standing to challenge the magistrate judge’s grant of his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, because that ruling did not injure him in any way. See Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1353–54 (11th Cir. 2003); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barrow, 29 F.4th 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2022).

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.