A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly14,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT G I LB ER T D E W A Y N E D A V I S,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. CI TI FI NA NC I AL A UTO C O R PO R A T I O N , form er l yknow n as A r c a di a Fi na nc i a l Lt d. ; CH A SE HOM E F I NAN CE L LC,

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 1522 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 1 8 6 7 - W YD- BNB)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pet i t i onerG i l ber tD e W ayne D avi s appea l s fr om an or derof the di s tr i ct c o u rt d ism iss in g h is p e tit io n fo r m a n d a m u s a n d /o r p ro h ib iti o n a n d d e n y in g h is mo t i o n fo ra t e mp o r a r yr e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r . W e a ffi r m.-2- B ackgr ound M r . D avi s comm ence d hi s s ui ti n di s tr i ctcour ton Sept ember26, 2005 by fi l i ng a pet i t i on capt i oned “28 U . S. C . § 1361, Fed. R . C i v. P. R ul e 81 Pet i t i on for a W r i tof M andamus orPr ohi bi t i on D i r ect ed t o the U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cy C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof C ol or ado. ” R . , D oc. 1 at1. T he pet i t i on al l eged thaton J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. D a v is s o u g h t r e lie f u n d e r C h a p te r 7 o f

th e B a n k ru p tc yC o d e . O n J ul y14, 2005, t he bankrupt cyj udge ent er ed an or dergr ant i ng r es pondent C has e H om e Fi nance L L C ’ s m ot i on forr el i ef f r om the aut om at i c s t ay . T hen on A ugus t24, 2005, t he bankrupt cyj udge ent er ed an or dergr ant i ng r es pondent C itifin a n c ia l A u to C o rp o ra tio n ’s m o tio n fo r r e lie f f ro m th e a u to m a tic s ta y . M r . D avi s ’ di s t r i ctcour tpet i t i on s oughtan or dervaca t i ng both of the or der s for r el i ef f r om t he aut om at i c s t ay , and hi s m ot i on fora t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or der (fi l ed co ntem po raneou sl y ) s ou gh tan o rderenjoi ning enforcem ent of tho se orders . T he di s t r i ctcour tr efe r r ed the mat t ert o a magi s tr at e j udge, w ho r ecomm ended thatt he mot i on fora t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or derbe deni ed, and t hatt he pet i t i on be di s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. A ft er re c e iv in g M r. D a v is ’ o bje c tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt re v ie w e d th e m a tte r d e n o v o , ac ce p ted th e re co m m en d ati o n , en tered an o rde r de n y ing the m o ti o n fo r a t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or der , and di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on forl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.-3- D i s cus s i on “W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al forl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on de novo . ” U. S. Wes t, Inc. v. Tris tani , 1 8 2 F . 3 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T he r ecor d r evea l s t hatM r . D avi s fi l ed an appeal fr om the bankrupt cy j udge’ s J ul y14, 2005 or derw i t h the B ankrupt cyA ppel l at e Panel ( B A P) on A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 0 5 . O n A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , B A P d is m is s e d th e a p p e a l a s u n tim e ly. A n ya p p e a l o f

B A P ’s d e c isio n d e n y in g th e a p p e a l as u n tim e lyb e lo n g e d in th is cour t– nott he di s t r i ctcour t . 28 U . S. C . § 158( c) ( 2) . T her efor e, t o the ext entthat M r . D avi s ’ pet i t i on i s an att empt ed appe al fr om the bankrupt cyj udge’ s J ul y14 or der , t he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on. A s t o t he A ugus t24, 2005 or derof the bankrupt cyj udge, M r . D avi s never appea l ed thator der . W hi l e s uch an appeal m ayl i e i n the di s tr i ctcour t , anys uch n o ti ce o f a p p ea l m u st be fil ed w ith in ten d ay s o f th e e n tryo f th e jud g m en t, o rde r, ordecr ee a ppeal ed. Fed. R . B ankr . P. 8002( a) . E ven i f M r . D avi s ’ Sept ember25, 2005 pet i t i on i s cons t rued as a not i ce of appea l , i tw as unt i m el y . A gai n, t o the ex tent that M r. D av is’ p eti ti o n is an att em p ted a p p ea l of the b an k rup tcyjud g e’s A ugus t24 or der , t he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on. A lt ern ati v ely , co n stru ing M r. D av is’ p eti ti o n as se ek ing the e x tr ao rdin ary r el i ef of m andamus a nd/ orpr ohi bi t i on, i tw as al s o pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. O ur c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th is c laim b e g in s a n d e n d s w ith th e p ro p o sitio n th a t “th e p a rty-4-

s eeki ng i s s uance of the w r i tm us thave no otheradequa t e means t o at t ai n the r el i ef he des i r es . ” Ka is e rS te e l C o r p . v . Fr a te s (In r e Ka is e rS te e l C o r p .) , 911 F. 2d 380, 386 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he r emedyof appe al w as avai l abl e t o M r . D avi s , and ther efor e, the di s tr i ctcour tcorr ect l yfound that a w r i tw as i nappr opr i at e. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed i n t he magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on and the d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e r , t h e j u d g me n ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge