Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02007/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Thor Kirk
Appellant
Gregg Marcantel
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JAMES THOR KIRK, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GREGG MARCANTEL, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 16-2007

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00614-MV-KBM)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

We raise sua sponte the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. In July of 2015, James T. Kirk filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Since that time, a magistrate judge has entered several 

procedural orders and the district court has entered one order, referring the case to the 

magistrate judge for a recommended disposition. On December 14, 2015, the respondent 

filed an answer to the petition, which is Docket No. 14 on the district court docket. On 

January 8, 2016, Mr. Kirk filed a notice of appeal that references Docket No. 14.

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

of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 

690-92 (1974); Albright v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 59 F.3d 1089, 1092 (10th Cir. 1995). A 

final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 13, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2007 Document: 01019553549 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 1 
court to do but execute judgment.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 

204 (1999) (internal quotations omitted). An order entered by a magistrate judge is not 

directly appealable to this court unless the magistrate judge was proceeding on a 

designation by the district court and with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). See Phillips v. Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217, 1221 (10th Cir. 2006); Colorado 

Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Anderson Constr., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989).

The district court has not yet entered a final decision in this case, none of the 

orders entered by the magistrate judge are directly appealable to this court, and Docket 

No. 14 is not a court order but a pleading filed by a party.

Because the district court has not yet entered a final appealable order, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-2007 Document: 01019553549 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 2