Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-02125/USCOURTS-ca10-14-02125-0/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 

_________________________________ 

WILLIAM N. GRIFFIN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

DANIEL A. BRYANT, individually and in 

his capacity as Attorney for the Village of 

Ruidoso, et al., 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 14-2125 

(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00799-JB-GBW) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, EBEL, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

On September 22, we directed a limited remand to the district court to clarify the 

status of final judgment in this matter. That remand was based on our review of the 

district court docket and the parties’ responses to our September 2 order requiring 

briefing on whether this appeal was from a final order, resolving all claims as to all 

parties. On September 25, the district court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order

confirming claims remain pending in that court. 

On September 28, the parties here filed a Joint Motion for Clarification on 

Jurisdiction and Oral Argument. By order issued on September 28, this court vacated the 

previously scheduled oral argument hearing. The appeal is now before us on review of 

the district court’s Order and the parties’ motion as it pertains to the jurisdictional issue. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 29, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-2125 Document: 01019499091 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 1 
2 

As we noted in prior orders, the district court’s June 18, 2014 Memorandum 

Opinion and Order granting the Ruidoso defendants summary judgment did not mention 

the Bryant defendants, nor did those parties file a separate summary judgment motion or 

join in the Ruidoso defendants’ motion. Consequently, and as confirmed by the district 

court, claims involving the Bryant defendants remain pending. As a result, the underlying 

order is neither final nor appealable and we lack jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s 

claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1291; Albright v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 59 F.3d 1089, 1092 

(10th Cir. 1995). We therefore grant the parties’ pending motion to the extent it seeks 

confirmation that this court lacks jurisdiction. 

This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and the case is REMANDED 

to the district court for further proceedings. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 14-2125 Document: 01019499091 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 2