Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01443/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01443-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David L. Collins
Appellant
People of the State of Colorado Society
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DAVID LEE COLLINS, a/k/a DAVID L. 

COLLINS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

COLORADO SOCIETY, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1443

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-02647-GPG)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Appellant David Lee Collins, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal of an 

October 25, 2016 show cause order issued by a magistrate judge on November 3, 2016, 

when proceedings in district court were still ongoing. 

Generally, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions. 28 

U.S.C. § 1291; see also Utah v. Norton, 396 F.3d 1281, 1286 (10th Cir. 2005) (describing 

final decisions as those that end the litigation on the merits and leave nothing for the 

court to do but execute the judgment). The October 25, 2016 order did not end the 

litigation.

Although the district court has since entered final judgment and Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2) provides that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the court 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 28, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1443 Document: 01019727088 Date Filed: 11/28/2016 Page: 1 
2

announces a decision or order—but before the entry of judgment or order—is treated as 

filed on the date of and after the entry,” the United States Supreme Court limited the 

application of Rule 4(a)(2) to decisions “that would be appealable if immediately 

followed by entry of judgment.” FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Insurance 

Co., 498 U.S. 269, 276 (1991) (emphasis in original). Rule 4(a)(2) does not apply to 

“clearly interlocutory decision[s]” like the October 25, 2016 order. “When prematurity of 

a notice of appeal cannot be ‘cured’ by Rule 4(a)(2), the aggrieved party must await a 

final judgment before filing a notice of appeal to challenge the allegedly erroneous 

ruling.” Constien v. United States, 628 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 2010). 

Additionally, an order entered by a magistrate judge is generally not immediately 

appealable. See Phillips v. Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217, 1222 (10th Cir. 2006) 

(“Magistrates may issue orders as to non-dispositive pretrial matters, and district courts

review such orders under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard of review.”) 

(citation omitted) (emphasis added). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1443 Document: 01019727088 Date Filed: 11/28/2016 Page: 2