Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06311/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06311-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

ROBERT ALAN MADDEN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CALVIN MADDEN; OKLAHOMA 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

SERVICES/OKLAHOMA CHILD 

SUPPORT SERVICES, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-6311

(D.C. No. 5:16-CV-00798-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, GORSUCH, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Appellant Robert Alan Madden, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal of an 

October 21, 2016 show cause order on October 27, 2016, when proceedings in district 

court were still ongoing. 

Generally, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions. 28 

U.S.C. § 1291; see also Utah v. Norton, 396 F.3d 1281, 1286 (10th Cir. 2005) (describing 

final decisions as those that end the litigation on the merits and leave nothing for the 

court to do but execute the judgment). The October 21, 2016 order did not end the 

litigation.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-6311 Document: 01019721951 Date Filed: 11/16/2016 Page: 1 
2

Although the district court has since entered final judgment and Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2) provides that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the court 

announces a decision or order—but before the entry of judgment or order—is treated as 

filed on the date of and after the entry,” the United States Supreme Court limited the 

application of Rule 4(a)(2) to decisions “that would be appealable if immediately 

followed by entry of judgment.” FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Insurance 

Co., 498 U.S. 269, 276 (1991) (emphasis in original). Rule 4(a)(2) does not apply to 

“clearly interlocutory decision[s]” like the October 21, 2016 order. “When prematurity of 

a notice of appeal cannot be ‘cured’ by Rule 4(a)(2), the aggrieved party must await a 

final judgment before filing a notice of appeal to challenge the allegedly erroneous 

ruling.” Constien v. United States, 628 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, 

this appeal is dismissed as premature.

We note that Mr. Madden filed a notice of appeal of the final judgment. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-6311 Document: 01019721951 Date Filed: 11/16/2016 Page: 2