Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04016/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

KENTON W. STEPHENS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS 

CORPORATION; FIDELITY 

INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL 

OPERATIONAL COMPANY, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-4016

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00108-RJS-EJF)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

We raise sua sponte the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. Appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal of the magistrate 

judge’s December 23, 2015 order, denying his motion for an ex parte hearing and motion 

to change venue. In his response to the court’s show cause order, Appellant states that he 

also seeks review of the magistrate judge’s December 21, 2015 order, which denied 

Appellant’s motion to submit a reply to Defendants’ answer, and the magistrate judge’s 

November 10, 2015 minute order, which denied Appellant’s motion to change venue and 

motion for an ex parte hearing on Appellant’s tax liability. The underlying district court 

case remains ongoing. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 25, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4016 Document: 01019592178 Date Filed: 03/25/2016 Page: 1 
2

Except in certain circumstances that are not present here, the court’s appellate 

jurisdiction is limited to review of final judgments. U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 690-92 

(1974). A decision is “not final, ordinarily, unless it ends the litigation on the merits and 

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Cunningham v. Hamilton 

County, Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (internal quotations omitted). 

“Under the collateral-order doctrine, we can hear immediate appeals of decisions 

before final judgment that ‘[1] finally determine claims of right [2] separable from, and 

collateral to, rights asserted in the action, [and] [3] too important to be denied review and 

too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until 

the whole case is adjudicated.’” United States v. Angilau, 717 F.3d 781, 785 (10th Cir. 

2013) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949) 

(alterations in original)). The orders that are the subjects of this appeal do not qualify as 

exceptions to the final judgment rule. Moreover, an order entered by a magistrate judge is 

generally not immediately appealable. See Phillips v. Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217, 1222 

(10th Cir. 2006) (“Magistrates may issue orders as to non-dispositive pretrial matters, and 

district courts review such orders under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard 

of review.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Appellate Case: 16-4016 Document: 01019592178 Date Filed: 03/25/2016 Page: 2 
3

Because the orders that are the subject of this appeal are not final judgments, are 

not otherwise appealable, and were issued by a magistrate judge, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider the appeal. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-4016 Document: 01019592178 Date Filed: 03/25/2016 Page: 3