D.G., Petitioner, v. STATE (2025)

D.G. petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's “Order Denying Defense Exception.”¹ This order does not commit D.G. to involuntary inpatient placement. See generally § 394.467(7), Fla. Stat. (2023). Nor does the order adopt or reject a magistrate's report and recommendation. Cf. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.490(h); Richardson v. Starling, 56 So. 3d 866, 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion by “modifying Appellant's child support obligations without benefit of the magistrate's report and recommendations”). In fact, no such written report and recommendation exists. The order merely denies D.G.’s exceptions to a nonexistent magistrate's report.

Without an order of involuntary commitment, D.G.’s petition is premature. Thus, D.G. fails to satisfy the jurisdictional prongs for certiorari. See generally Plantz v. John, 170 So. 3d 822, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to appeal or to seek a writ of certiorari of any rendered involuntary commitment order.

Dismissed without prejudice.

FOOTNOTES

1.   D.G. initially filed a direct appeal of the order. Following D.G.’s unobjected-to request, we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(A); Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c); Langsetmo v. Metza, 306 So. 3d 112, 114 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Murison v. Coral Park Props., Inc., 64 So. 3d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

LaROSE, Judge.

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.