Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01305/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01305-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

ALFRED MCZEAL; MATTHEW D. 

HAYNIE; NHUT HUY LE; CHAI MISTY 

LE; LOFTON RYAN BURRIS, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

MARK S. MILLER; JAMILEH MILLER, 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; 

MIDSOUTH BANK, NA; HREAL 

COMPNAY, LLC; MIDSOUTH BANK 

SHARES, INC.; JAY L. ANGELLE; PHH 

MORTGAGE; WELLS FARGO BANK 

N.A.; FEDERAL HOME LOAN 

MORTGAGE CORPORATION; J.P. 

MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; US 

BANK; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS 

TRUSTEE FOR MORTGAGE PASS 

THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 

1998 R3; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.; 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY; RBS FINANCIAL;

MACKLE ALTISOURCE; WOLF, 

ZIENTZ & MANN, P.C.; SCHILLER & 

ADAM, P.A.; HINSHAW & 

CULBERTSON, LLP; MCCARTHY & 

HOLTHUS, LLP; QUALITY LOAN 

SERVICES; DOUGLAS A. TOLENO; 

KENDRA WILEY; SAMUEL R. 

COLEMAN; ELLEN B. SILVERMAN, 

No. 15-1305

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01381-WJM-MJW)

(D. Colo.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 5, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1305 Document: 01019502366 Date Filed: 10/05/2015 Page: 1 
2

 Defendants – Appellees.

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, HOLMES, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

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

been entered by the district court. The plaintiffs are appealing procedural orders entered 

by the magistrate judge.

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

specific types of interlocutory orders. 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). Moreover, except for proceedings 

conducted by the magistrate judge on consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal taken directly from a 

decision of a magistrate judge. See Colorado Building & Construction Trade Council v. 

B.B. Andersen Construction Co., 879 F.2d 809 (10th Cir. 1989).

The plaintiffs argue that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

However, that section only pertains to habeas corpus and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. 

Appellate Case: 15-1305 Document: 01019502366 Date Filed: 10/05/2015 Page: 2 
3

The court notes that the district court entered final judgment on September 17, 

2015. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 15-1305 Document: 01019502366 Date Filed: 10/05/2015 Page: 3