Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02201/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02201-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LARRY LOPEZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY HATCH, Warden;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 07-2201

(D.C. No. CIV-06-1254- BB-RLP)

ORDER

Filed October 29, 2007

Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Lopez, proceeding pro se, appeals the July 31, 2007 report and

recommendation entered by a United States magistrate judge in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

habeas proceeding. 

Except for proceedings conducted by a magistrate judge upon designation by

a district judge and consent of the parties pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), decisions

rendered by a magistrate judge are not final or immediately appealable. “[W]e have

consistently recognized that ‘[a] magistrate exercising “additional duties”

jurisdiction remains constantly subject to the inherent supervisory power of the

Appellate Case: 07-2201 Document: 010159118 Date Filed: 10/29/2007 Page: 1 
2

district judge and the judge retains the “ultimate responsibility for decision making

in every instance.’ ” Colorado Bldg. & Const. Trades Council v. B. B. Andersen

Const. Co, 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989). Accord Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury,

408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). 

In the underlying habeas proceeding, the parties did not consent to final

disposition by a magistrate judge under § 636(c). Consequently, the magistrate

judge’s July 31, 2007 report and recommendation does not constitute a final or

immediately appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or under any recognized

exception to the final judgment rule. The court lacks jurisdiction.

On August 24, 2007, after the notice of appeal was filed, the district court

entered an order and separate judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and dismissing Lopez’s § 2254 petition. Under Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1)(A), the thirty-day deadline for the filing a timely appeal as to the August 24,

2007 Judgment expired on Monday, September 24, 2007. See Fed. R. App. P.

26(a)(3). Petitioner failed to file a new appeal or any document in this court or in

the district court that may be construed as the functional equivalent of a timely

appeal as to the August 24, 2007 Judgment. 

Appellate Case: 07-2201 Document: 010159118 Date Filed: 10/29/2007 Page: 2 
3

This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-2201 Document: 010159118 Date Filed: 10/29/2007 Page: 3