Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02028/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02028-0/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 

_________________________________ 

TU MY TONG, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

ALEXANDER B. SHAPIRO; MCBEE 

DERECK; DANNA SCHUTTEEVERETT; VANESSA ALYCE; MY 

HANH CHE; ANN TRAN; OLGA 

QUIROZ; MONICA CARDENAS; 

SUSAN LEE TRAVIS; SERGIO 

CASTRO; RAUL MAGALLANES 

ESCORZA; ANGELICA (LNU); 

SALVATORE PATRICOLO; JIM LAWS; 

MARCIA MILNER; LOUIS MARTINEZ; 

RUSSELL DEAN CLARK, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 16-2028 

(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00682-JB-LAM) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Plaintiff Tu My Tong appealed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

to grant the defendants’ several motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, to deny the 

plaintiffs’ pending motions, and to dismiss any remaining claims with prejudice. This 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders of the district court, see 28 U.S.C. § 

1291, and certain types of interlocutory and collateral orders not applicable here, see 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 27, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2028 Document: 01019628216 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 1 
2 

U.S. 541, 545–46 (1949). The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge is 

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Phillips v. 

Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217, 1222 (10th Cir. 2006). The plaintiff effectively conceded 

that the appeal was premature in the response filed to the court’s order to show cause 

challenging jurisdiction. 

We note that the district court subsequently entered an order that reviewed the 

plaintiff’s objections to the report and recommendation, but overruled the objections and 

adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. (Dist. Ct. Docket No. 51, Order 

Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, 

Mar. 24, 2016). Final judgment was entered the same day. (Id. No. 54, Final Judgment, 

Mar. 24, 2016.) The plaintiff did not appeal from the district court’s final order and 

separate judgment, however, and the time within which to do so has expired. Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Mere payment of an appellate filing fee, without filing an actual 

notice of appeal along with the fee to provide notice of what is being appealed, is 

insufficient to constitute a notice of appeal from the final judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c); 

see also Sueiro Vazquez v. Torregrosa de la Rosa, 494 F.3d 227, 231-32 (1st Cir. 2007) 

(rejecting cross-appellants’ argument that payment of appellate filing fee unambiguously 

demonstrated intent to file cross-appeal). 

Appellate Case: 16-2028 Document: 01019628216 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 2 
3 

Without a valid appeal from the district court’s final disposition of the underlying 

case, we dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

by: Lara Smith 

 Counsel to the Clerk 

Appellate Case: 16-2028 Document: 01019628216 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 3