Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04146/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04146-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Wayne Allen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

F I LE D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unfretl States <'.'.-Oun of Appeal8 

Tench Ci~ruir 

JUL 2 '( 1992 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

v. 

GARY WAYNE ALLEN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-4146 

) (D.C. No. 91-CV-709) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-4146 Document: 010110270489 Date Filed: 07/27/1992 Page: 1
Defendant Gary Wayne Allen, pro se, appeals from the 

dismissal of his motion for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the 

United States District Court for the District of Utah. We 

conclude that we are without jurisdiction and therefore must 

dismiss this appeal. McGeorge v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 871 

F.2d 952, 953 (10th Cir. 1989)(court of appeals has independent 

duty to inquire into its own jurisdiction, and has no choice but 

to dismiss appeal where jurisdiction is lacking). 

On August 26, 1991, the magistrate judge recommended 

dismissal of the motion, and notified the parties of their right 

to object to the report and recommendation within ten days. The 

record does not reflect that defendant filed objections to the 

magistrate judge's recommendation or that the district court 

entered a final order. Defendant does not challenge the 

designation of a magistrate judge. 

28 u.s.c. § 636 authorizes a district judge to designate a 

magistrate judge to conduct certain proceedings and to submit to 

the judge proposed findings of fact and recommendations. Prisoner 

petitions under 28 u.s.c. §§ 2241 and 2255 are matters that may be 

designated to a magistrate judge. 1 See§ 636(b)(l)(B)(prisoner 

petitions challenging conditions of confinement);~, Bloomgren 

v. Belaski, 948 F.2d 688, 689 (10th Cir. 1991)(§ 2241 petition 

referred to magistrate judge). The parties are afforded ten days 

to object to the magistrate's findings. § 636(b)(l). Thereafter, 

1 Defendant's claim for relief is styled as a motion 

§ 2255, but the relief he seeks is available under§ 2241. 

2 

under 

Appellate Case: 91-4146 Document: 010110270489 Date Filed: 07/27/1992 Page: 2
the district court judge "shall make a de novo determination of 

those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 

recommendations to which objection is made." Id. 

The recommendation of the magistrate judge is not an 

appealable final order within the meaning of 28 u.s.c. § 1291. 

See Colorado Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen 

Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989)(lack of 

jurisdiction over appeal from magistrate judge's resolution of 

post-judgment dispute); Harding v. Kurco, Inc., 603 F.2d 813, 814 

(10th Cir. 1979)(judgment entered upon magistrate judge's order 

not a final appealable order); Niehaus v. Kansas Bar Ass'n, 793 

F.2d 1159, 1164-65 (10th Cir. 1986)(failure to object to 

magistrate judge's pretrial order precludes appellate review), 

superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Devargas v. 

Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., 911 F.2d 1377 (10th Cir. 1990). 

The magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be construed as 

a premature announcement of the district court's final order. See 

§ 636(b)(l)(judge shall make de novo determination of objected-to 

portions of magistrate judge's report);~, Colorado Bldg., 879 

F.2d at 811 (district judge has ultimate authority for decision 

making for referred matters) . Therefore, there exists no final 

order to ripen into an appealable order. See Lewis v. B.F. 

Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d 641, 645 (10th Cir. 1988)(Fed. R. App . P. 

4(a)(2) permits prematurely filed notice of appeal to ripen and 

save the appeal). 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-4146 Document: 010110270489 Date Filed: 07/27/1992 Page: 3
Because the record does not disclose a final appealable 

order, this court is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, this 

appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-4146 Document: 010110270489 Date Filed: 07/27/1992 Page: 4