Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02415/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02415-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UN I TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 111988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

THOMAS W. HILL, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE; 

PAULS. BRITT; PAUL J. VALLERIE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

} 

} 

) 

) 

} 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

No. 87-2415 

(D.C. No. 85-1485JB) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before ANDERSON and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, 

Di strict Judge.* 

*The Honorable Ralph G. Thompson, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by 

designation. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

t hree-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

wou l d not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.l.8(c} and 

27. 1 .2. The cause i s t herefore ordered submitted without oral 

argumen t . 

Plaintiff appea l s from two orders of the district court. The 

orders do not dispose of all of plaintiff's claims on the merits. 

Appellate Case: 87-2415 Document: 010110027445 Date Filed: 02/11/1988 Page: 1 
~ In one order, the district court states that it will not reach the 

merits of the claim involving suspension of a security clearance 

until this court decides appeal No. 86-2418. Consequently, the 

issue before this court is whether the two district court orders 

appealed from are immediately reviewable as a matter of right 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

The grant of appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals 

from final decisions of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 

Century Laminating, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 595 F.2d 563, 565 (10th 

Cir.), cert. dismissed, 444 U.S. 987 (1979). A judgment is final 

and appealable when a district court enters a decision which ends 

the litigation, leaving nothing to be done except execution of the 

judgment. Lamp v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 1167, 1168 (10th Cir. 1981). 

To be final, the judgment must fully inform the losing party of 

the extent of the remedy afforded against it. Id. at 1168-69. 

Exception to the final decision rule is permitted for cases 

which finally determine rights separable from and collateral to 

rights asserted in the action, which are 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. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

546 (1949). 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) permits a district court judge to 

certify certain orders for appeal, and the court of appeals may in 

its discretion permit appeal. Also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) permits 

the district court to direct entry of final judgment after making 

an express determination that there was no just reason for delay 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2415 Document: 010110027445 Date Filed: 02/11/1988 Page: 2 
of an appeal and upon an express direction for the entry of 

judgment. 

Neither of the district court's orders was a final order. 

Furthermore, neither order falls within the established guidelines 

for exception to the final judgment rule nor was certified 

pursuant to § 1292(b) or Rule 54(b). Accordingly, we conclude 

that we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

Plaintiff's appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2415 Document: 010110027445 Date Filed: 02/11/1988 Page: 3