UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ ROBERT J. HARPER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CO RIZON HEALTH, INC.; EDDIE WILSON, Warden, Wyoming State Penite ntiary; ROBERT O. LAMPERT, Director, Wyoming Department of Corrections; ANNE CYBULSKI-SANDL IAN, Wyoming Department of Corrections Health Services Program Manager; ROBERT WHITE, M.D., Corizon Health, Inc.; S. LEVENE, M.D., Corizon Health, Inc.; CINDY ARCHULETTA, R.N., Corizon Health, Inc.; H. MASCARENA, L.P.N.; L. DEHERRERA, C.N., individually and in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. No. 16-8082 (D.C. No. 2:16- CV-00114-SWS) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , BALDOCK , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 16, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Robert Harper, a Wyoming prisoner pr oceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The

court determined that the co mplaint did not contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim. Mr. Harper filed a pos tjudgment motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint, which a magistrate ju dge denied. The magistrate judge also denied Mr. Harper’s motion to reconsider the denial of his postjudgment motion. It is undisputed that Mr. Harper did not consen t to proceed before a magistrate judge. We conclude that the magist rate judge was without author ity to enter the final order denying the motion to reconsid er. Consequently, we dismi ss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. “Every federal appellate court has a spec ial obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of th e lower courts in a cause under review, even [if] the parties are prep ared to concede it.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t , 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998) (brackets and in ternal quotation marks omitted). Federal magistrate judges are creatures of statute, and so is their jurisdiction. Unlike district judges, th ey are not Article III judicial officers, and they have only the jurisdiction or authority granted to them by Congress, which is set out in 28 U.S.C. § 636. As applicable here where the [plaintiff] did not consent to proc eeding before the magistrate judge, see § 636(c)(1), the district court may designa te a magistrate judge to consider various matters. See § 636(b). These matters ar e generally categorized as “dispositive” or “non-dispositive,” and a magistrate judge’s authority with respect to each category is different[.] First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Smith , 229 F.3d 992, 995 (10t h Cir. 2000) (citations, alterations, and internal quot ation marks omitted). “[A] magistrate [judge] is not authorized to render final appealable decisions within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291,3 absent both designation by the district cour t and consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) . . . .” Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Counc il v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co. , 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989). Mo reover, “[s]ection 6 36 does not expressly authorize a district court to designate a magistrate [judge] to handle post-judgment

matters.” Id. As for dispositive motions, magistrate j udges “may only make proposed findings of fact and recommendations, and district courts must make de novo determinations as to those matters if a party objects to the magistrate’s recommendations.” First Union Mortg. Corp. , 229 F.3d at 995 (internal quotati on marks omitted). Therefore, when Mr. Harper sought reconsideration of the ma gistrate judge’s order denying his motion for leave to file an amended complaint, “the dist rict court was obligated to review the basis for the order [denying reconsideration],” Phillips v. Beierwaltes , 466 F.3d 1217, 1222 (10th Cir. 2006) (alterations and in ternal quotation marks omitted); accord First Union Mortg. Corp. , 229 F.3d at 996. 1

1 We express no opinion on whether the ma gistrate judge had authority to enter an order denying the postjudgment motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint. See Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council , 879 F.2d at 811 (“Section 636 does not expressly authorize a district court to designa te a magistrate [judge] to handle post-judgment matters.”). Given the district court’s ob ligation to address Mr. Harper’s motion to reconsider, see Phillips , 466 F.3d at 1222, we dismiss the appeal on that ground.4 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. There was not a final appealable order entere d by the district court. The Notice of Non-Participation and Objection to being Name d as Appellees filed by de fendants-appellees Corizon Health, Inc., Archuletta, DeHerrera, Masc arenas, and White is denied as moot.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge