Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-24-01452/USCOURTS-ca10-24-01452-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karla Sue Podlucky
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

KARLA SUE PODLUCKY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 24-1452

(D.C. No. 1:24-CV-01669-RTG)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

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

this appeal. See Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1294 (10th Cir. 2001) 

([W]e have an independent duty to examine our own jurisdiction.”). In June 2024, pro se 

Plaintiff Karla Sue Podlucky filed an action in the district court against the United States 

alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligent and wrongful acts and 

omissions of employees of the Internal Revenue Service. On November 18, 2024, the 

magistrate judge entered an order that directed Mrs. Podlucky to file a second amended 

complaint within 30 days that asserts a claim for relief over which the court has subject 

matter jurisdiction and states specific facts to show an entitlement to relief against each 

defendant. On November 18, 2024, Mrs. Podlucky filed a notice of appeal “from the 

order directing Plaintiff to file second amended complaint entered on November 18, 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 23, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-1452 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2024 Page: 1
2

2024.” We directed Mrs. Podlucky to address our jurisdiction to review the magistrate 

judge’s interlocutory order, and Mrs. Podlucky has filed an “appeal brief for interlocutory 

appeal.” Upon consideration, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This court generally has jurisdiction to review only final decisions of district 

courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the 

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” See Cunningham 

v. Hamilton Cty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999). The magistrate judge’s order directing 

Mrs. Podlucky to file a second amended complaint is not a final decision because it does 

not end the litigation on the merits. The district court case has not been terminated and 

remains ongoing. Further, a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order is not final 

and appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (magistrate judge authority); Phillips v. 

Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217, 1222 (10th Cir. 2006) (magistrate judge’s order was not final 

and appealable). Because the magistrate judge’s interlocutory order is not final and 

appealable, we lack jurisdiction to review this appeal. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 24-1452 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2024 Page: 2