Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06019/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelli Curry
Appellee
Janet Dowling
Appellee
Crystal Durfey
Appellee
Becky Guffy
Appellee
Debbie Morton
Appellee
Brandy Page
Appellee
Mike Rogers
Appellee
David Robin Whitmore
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DAVID WHITMORE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MIKE ROGERS; KELLI CURRY, 

CRYSTAL DURFEY; BECKY GUFFY; 

JANET DOWLING; DEBBIE MORTON; 

BRANDY PAGE, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-6019

(D.C. No. 5:13-CV-00113-M)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se plaintiff David Robin Whitmore appeals an interlocutory district court 

order. This court entered an order to show cause as to why the appeal should not be 

dismissed because the district court case has not concluded. The plaintiff filed a response 

to the order to show cause. After considering the plaintiff’s response, the record and the 

applicable law, we dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

This court generally has jurisdiction to review only final decisions, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, except in specific situations not applicable here. A final decision is one that fully 

terminates all matters as to all parties and causes of action and leaves nothing for the 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 9, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6019 Document: 01019395706 Date Filed: 03/09/2015 Page: 1 
2

district court to do but execute the judgment. Utah v. Norton, 396 F.3d 1281, 1286 (10th 

Cir. 2005). 

The plaintiff is not appealing a final order. No final judgment has been entered, 

which would signal the end of the district court case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Rather, the 

district court case continues. The defendants’ dispositive motions, which were filed after 

the notice of appeal, remain pending. Additionally, the order being appealed does not 

satisfy the requirements for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. See

McFarland v. Childers, 212 F.3d 1178, 1183 (10th Cir. 2000) (describing three 

requirements to apply collateral order doctrine). Without a final decision and no 

exception to the final judgment rule available, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the 

appeal at this time. The plaintiff’s arguments in his response to the show cause order do 

not persuade us otherwise. 

In sum, interlocutory district court orders like the one being appealed here are not 

immediately appealable. Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Finesilver, 546 F.2d 338, 342 (10th 

Cir. 1976) (“Every interlocutory order involves, to some degree, a potential loss or harm. 

That risk, however, must be balanced against the need for efficient federal judicial 

administration, the need for the appellate courts to be free from the harassment of 

fragmentary and piecemeal review of cases otherwise resulting from a succession of 

appeals from the various rulings which might arise during the course of litigation.” 

(internal quotations omitted)). 

Appellate Case: 15-6019 Document: 01019395706 Date Filed: 03/09/2015 Page: 2 
3

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-6019 Document: 01019395706 Date Filed: 03/09/2015 Page: 3