Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02158/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02158-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Unit.eel Stat.ea Qrurt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

EDWARD D. CHRISTENSEN, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

STEVEN WAYNE CHRISTENSEN; ) 

LINDA ANN CHRISTENSEN; FARRELL H. ) 

CHRISTENSEN; AND CHERYL LYN CHRISTENSEN,) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

FEB 2 41988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2158 

(D.C. No. 86-C-1041S) 

(D. Utah) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Appellate Case: 87-2158 Document: 010110027776 Date Filed: 02/24/1988 Page: 1 
I 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

affirming a ruling of the United States magistrate in an action 

commenced by the United States to foreclose tax liens. 

During those proceedings, the plaintiff sought to depose 

defendant and requested production of certain documents. 

Defendant responded with a motion to quash and for a protective 

order. After hearing, the magistrate denied both motions. The 

district court affirmed. 

The threshold question is whether this court has jurisdiction 

of the district court's interlocutory order. Generally, orders 

pertaining to discovery matters are considered interlocutory and 

not immediately reviewable. The challenged order was not 

immediately appealable of right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or 

any of the recognized exceptions to the final judgment rule. See 

Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Finesilver, 546 F.2d 338 (10th Cir. 

1976). 

Accordingly, we conclude that the appeal is premature and 

must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2158 Document: 010110027776 Date Filed: 02/24/1988 Page: 2