Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-13437 Document: 4-1 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 Page: 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-13437 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ BROADTREE RESERVE AT GWINNETT, LLC, d.b.a. Reserve at Gwinnett, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:26-cv-05199-SEG ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Christopher Thomas, proceeding pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in an action he removed from USCA11 Case: 26-13437 Document: 4-1 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 26-13437 a state court eviction proceeding. In an order entered on Septem- ber 10, 2026, a magistrate judge informed Thomas that his IFP ap- plication was incomplete and that he needed to file a completed application. Thomas filed a notice of appeal from “the order recom- mending remand.” Thomas then filed a second IFP application, which the magistrate judge granted. There is not an order recommending remand or an order remanding this action to state court. Because Thomas has ap- pealed from a non-existent ruling, we lack jurisdiction over his ap- peal. See Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998) (explaining that a notice of appeal is ineffective to appeal a contemplated future order or judgment that does not exist at the time the notice of appeal is filed unless the decision or order was already announced). Even liberally construing Thomas’s notice of appeal as chal- lenging the magistrate judge’s September 10 order, that was not a final or otherwise appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a final judgment leaves nothing for the dis- trict court to do but execute the judgment); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 989 (11th Cir. 2022) (explaining that the col- lateral order doctrine allows for appeal of a non-final order if it con- clusively resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits and would be effectively unreviewable later). And because USCA11 Case: 26-13437 Document: 4-1 Date Filed: 11/09/2026 Page: 3 of 3 26-13437 Opinion of the Court 3 the magistrate judge has now granted Thomas’s second IFP appli- cation, we cannot provide meaningful relief from that order. See Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that an issue is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.