Case Information

*1 Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: ^[*]

T. H. Hill moves for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) to pursue the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By doing so, he is *2 Case: 15-10522 Document: 00513871792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2017

No. 15-10522

challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the notice of appeal was filed after the magistrate judge had issued his report and recommendation (“R&R”) but before the district court had ruled, Hill sought to appeal the R&R.

A premature notice of appeal is valid only where the order appealed from announces a decision that would be appealable if it were immediately followed by the entry of judgment. FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co. , 498 U.S. 269, 276–77 (1991); see also United States v. Cooper , 135 F.3d 960, 963 (5th Cir. 1998). Even if it were immediately followed by the entry of judg- ment, the R&R was not appealable, see Cooper , 135 F.3d at 962–63, so the notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court, see id. Be- cause Hill sought to appeal a non-appealable order, his appeal has no arguable basis in law or fact and therefore is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.