UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

DAVID WEBB, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

TERRY L. THOMPSON; KEVIN 

MCCLEOD; KEVIN BURTON; FNU 

WEST; FNU JOHNSON; 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, appearing 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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 judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 Court
2 

Appellees after our remand in Webb v. Scott, 643 F. App’x 711 (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(unpublished).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, the Ogden City defendants and 

the Weber County defendants, settled with Mr. Webb after a settlement conference 

conducted by a magistrate judge. Mr. Webb was represented by pro bono counsel 

and signed a release of claims. The district court granted a motion to enforce the 

settlement agreement, dismissed all claims against the two 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 reopen the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of the Ogden defendants, which was certified as final and 

ultimately resulted in our remand order. 

Mr. Webb did not timely respond to the Ogden City defendants’ motion to 

enforce the settlement agreement and the district court granted it. See DUCiv R 7-

1(d). Although he later argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because he 

filed a notice of appeal, that contention is plainly without merit; a non-appealable 

order does not divest the district court of jurisdiction. 

We evaluate the enforcement of a settlement 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 settlement terms, signed a 
3 

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 settlement agreement attaching Mr. Webb’s notice of appeal 

and the claims that he makes here in one form or another. 

AFFIRMED. Mr. Webb’s July 5, 2017 motion 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 the district court for determining those costs 

and fees. 

 Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge