Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02372/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02372-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2372

___________

Tandy L. Hairston, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Carolyn Beverly, *

* Appeal from the United States

Plaintiff, * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2007

Filed: July 23, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In March 2005 Tandy Hairston sought return of a Rolex watch as well as

numerous other items seized by the FBI in November 2001 as part of a criminal

investigation. The district court1

 dismissed Hairston’s claim for return of the watch,

and Hairston appeals. 

Appellate Case: 06-2372 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2007 Entry ID: 3332346
-2-

We conclude we lack jurisdiction to review the March 2006 order. While the

district court dismissed some of Hairston’s claims in a January 6 order, the court has

not rendered final judgment on Hairston’s claim for property on a “List of Items To

Be Returned,” which he submitted to the court on January 23. Thus, the March order,

which disposed of only the watch claim, did not end the litigation on the merits.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have jurisdiction over district court’s final

decisions); Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 218 F.3d 926, 927 (8th Cir. 2000) (decision

is not usually final unless it effectively ends litigation on merits and leaves nothing

for district court to do but execute judgment). If the court intended the March 2006

order to be a partial final judgment, certification under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b) was required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (when action raises more

than one claim for relief, court may direct entry of final judgment as to fewer than all

claims only upon “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and

upon an express direction for the entry of judgment”; in absence of such determination

and direction, order which adjudicates fewer than all claims does not terminate action

as to any claim); Stockman’s Water Co. v. Vaca Partners, 425 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th

Cir. 2005) (district court’s certification was ineffective to provide jurisdiction over

appeal where certification order did not include analysis of relevant factors under Rule

54(b)); cf. Bullock v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 817 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir. 1987) (orders

directing entry of final judgment as to fewer than all parties must, either in express

words or by unmistakably clear implication, contain findings specifically required by

Rule 54). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2372 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2007 Entry ID: 3332346