UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ DAVID WEBB, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. TERRY L. THOMPSON; KEVIN MCCLEOD; KEVI N BURTON; FNU WEST; FNU JOHNS ON; FNU GATES; FNU FLATT; JON J. GREINER; TIMOTHY SCOTT; FNU MURRAY, Defendants - Appellees. No. 17-4048 (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00128-DN-EJF) (D. Utah)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before KELLY , MURPHY , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges. 

________________ _________________ Plaintiff-Appellant David Webb, appeari ng pro se, appeals from the dismissal of his case following his entry into a settlement agreement with Defendants -

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** 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. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 16, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Appellees after our remand in Webb v. Sc ott, 643 F. App’x 7 11 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished). The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not restate them here other than to say that two groups of defendants, th e Ogden City defendants and the Weber County defendants, settled with Mr. Webb after a settlement conference conducted by a magistrate judge. Mr. Webb was repres ented by pro bono counsel and signed a release of claims. The distri ct court granted a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, dismis sed all claims against the tw o groups of defendants, and entered a final judgment. On appeal, Mr. Webb argues that he should not be bound by the settlement agreement because of fraud by the parties and their attorneys and because he was pressured to settle. He also seeks to re open the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Ogden defendant s, which was certified as final and ultimately resulted in our remand order. Mr. Webb did not timely respond to th e Ogden City defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement and the di strict court granted it. See DUCiv R 7- 1(d). Although he later argued that the dist rict court lacked jurisdiction because he filed a notice of appeal, th at contention is plainly w ithout merit; a non-appealable order does not divest the dist rict court of jurisdiction. We evaluate the enforcement of a se ttlement agreement for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1491, 1495 (10th Cir. 1993). We find no abuse of discretion here. The magistrate judge held a settlement conference, Mr. Webb, represented by appointed counsel, agreed to the se ttlement terms, signed a3 release, and the terms of the settlement agreement were placed on the record. Mr. Webb apparently changed his mind thereafter. Counsel circulated a proposed order dismissing all claims with prejudice. Not surprisingly, the Ogden City defendants moved to enforce the settle ment agreement attaching Mr . Webb’s notice of appeal and the claims that he makes he re in one form or another. AFFIRMED. Mr. Webb’s July 5, 2017 mo tion is denied. The Ogden City and Weber County defendants’ motions for costs and attorney’s fees are granted. Fed. R. App. P. 38. The matter is remanded to th e district court for de termining those costs and fees. Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge