Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04134/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04134-0/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

_________________________________

DAVID WEBB, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY SCOTT, Police Officer for 

Ogden City Police Department; FNU 

MURRAY, Police Officer at Ogden City 

Police Department; TERRY L. 

THOMPSON, Sheriff for Weber County; 

KEVIN McCLEOD, Undersheriff for 

Weber County Sheriff's Office; KEVIN 

BURTON, Captain and Corrections 

Division Chief Deputy for Weber County 

Correctional Facility; FNU WEST, Sgt. at 

Weber County Correctional Facility; FNU 

JOHNSON, Sgt. at Weber County 

Correctional Facility; FNU FLATT, 

Correctional Officer at Weber County 

Correctional Facility; JON J. GREINER, 

Chief of Police @ Ogden City Police 

Dept., 

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

FNU GATES, Correctional Officer at 

Weber County Correctional Facility, 

 Defendant.

No. 16-4134

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00128-DN-EJF)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 11, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4134 Document: 01019670925 Date Filed: 08/11/2016 Page: 1 
2

_________________________________

This court lacks jurisdiction because no final or otherwise appealable order has 

been entered by the district court. The plaintiff appeals six interlocutory orders. The 

matter is still proceeding in the district court. 

This court has jurisdiction to review only final decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 

specific types of interlocutory orders not applicable here. A final decision is one that 

disposes of all issues on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the 

judgment. Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 521 (1988).

None of the orders being appealed is appealable under the collateral order doctrine 

as set forth in Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S.541 (1949). In order to come 

within the collateral order doctrine, the order being appealed must meet three conditions. 

The order must “(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an 

important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively 

unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 

(2006) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, an order denying Rule 54(b) certification 

is not appealable. See McCall v. Deeds, 849 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir.1988); Makuc v. 

American Honda Motor Co., 692 F.2d 172, 173 (1st Cir.1982) (because only the granting

Appellate Case: 16-4134 Document: 01019670925 Date Filed: 08/11/2016 Page: 2 
3

of a Rule 54(b) motion interferes with the policy against piecemeal review, only the grant 

of the motion is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 16-4134 Document: 01019670925 Date Filed: 08/11/2016 Page: 3