Opinion ID: 6316715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We have jurisdiction to address these rulings.

Text: The defendants challenge our jurisdiction to consider these issues, arguing that Mr. Sperry failed to designate the rulings in his notice of appeal. We reject this argument. 2 Appellate Case: 21-3008 Document: 010110648547 Date Filed: 02/23/2022 Page: 3 In the notice of appeal, the appellant must designate the orders being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). This designation ordinarily limits the scope of our jurisdiction. HCG Platinum, LLC v. Preferred Prod. Placement Corp., 873 F.3d 1191, 1199 n.8 (10th Cir. 2017). But nonfinal orders typically merge into the final judgment, triggering appellate jurisdiction over earlier rulings. McBride v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 281 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2002). In his notice of appeal, Mr. Sperry designated the final judgment, so the earlier rulings merged into that judgment. Given this merger into the final judgment, the notice of appeal triggered our jurisdiction to address entry of the scheduling order, the ruling on the motion to amend the complaint, the decision whether to appoint counsel, and the ruling on the request to convene a medical screening panel.