Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01295/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01295-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Office of the State Engineer, Department of Natural Resources, State of Colorado
Appellee
Melody Ramsey
Appellant

Document Text:

( 

.,,,. \. 

FILED e.1s 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAIISnited States Co~rt ~f Appe 'Tenth C1ra.11t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 18 199 

MELODY RAMSEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 

STATE OF COLORADO, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-1295 

) (D.C. No. 87-S-1392) 

) ( D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

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. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the district 

court which adjudicated fewer than all of the claims or the rights 

or liabilities of fewer than all of the parties. Absent a 

determination of the district court that there is no just reason 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1295 Document: 010110034240 Date Filed: 04/18/1991 Page: 1 
for delay and express direction for the entry of judgment, an 

interlocutory order of the type challenged by plaintiff-appellant 

remains subject to revision and consequently is not immediately 

reviewable by appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 54(b). See also Lewis 

v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d 641 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Previously, plaintiff was advised of the jurisdictional 

defect and afforded sufficient time to comply with the 

requirements of Rule 54(b). On March 29, 1991, the district court 

declined to make the determination required by Rule 54(b) for 

immediate appeal and later denied reconsideration. The district 

court's ruling is conclusive. Accordingly, this court is without 

jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed. 

Appeal DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1295 Document: 010110034240 Date Filed: 04/18/1991 Page: 2