Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05017/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05017-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael McCalister
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL MCCALISTER, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-5017

(D.C. No. 4:12-CV-00324-TCK-FHM)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

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

_________________________________

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

this appeal. Michael McCalister appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to recuse 

and the denial of his motion seeking reconsideration of the recusal order. Mr. McCalister 

asked the district court to recuse from further proceedings in connection with his most 

recent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The § 2255 motion remains pending in the district 

court.

Except in certain limited circumstances not present here, our appellate jurisdiction 

is limited to review of final decisions. 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 

judgment.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (internal 

quotations omitted). Because the district court has not entered a final decision on Mr. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 19, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5017 Document: 01019401483 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Page: 1 
2

McCalister’s § 2255 motion, the two orders Mr. McCalister seeks to appeal are 

interlocutory and are not immediately appealable. In re American Ready Mix, Inc., 14 

F.3d 1497, 1499 (10th Cir. 1994) (noting that an order denying a motion to recuse is 

interlocutory, not final, and is not immediately appealable).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-5017 Document: 01019401483 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Page: 2