Quintin v. Krieger

Filing 9

USCA ORDER as to the petition for permission to appeal filed by Thomas Quintin. Mr. Quintin seeks permission to appeal from an order issued by a magistrate judge on 4/6/11. Petitioner shall show cause within 21 days of the date of this order why his petition should not be denied. Briefing on the merits is Tolled pending further order of this court. USCA case no. 11-701. (bjrsl, )

FILED
Appellate Case: 11-701 Document: 01018621951 Date Filed: 04/14/2011 Page: 1
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

April 14, 2011

UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court

TH O MA S W. Q U IN TIN ,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 11-701
(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00831-BNB)

M ARCIA S. KRIEGER,
Respondent.

OR DER

Briefing on the merits is tolled pending further order of this court.
This matter is before the court on a petition for permission to appeal, filed
by petitioner, M r. Thomas W illiam Quintin. M r. Quintin seeks permission to
appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) and Fed. R. App. P. 5, from an order
issued by a magistrate judge on April 6, 2011 in Quintin v. Krieger, No. 11-cv00831-B NB.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), an otherwise non-final order may be appealed,
in the circuit court’s discretion, when the district court certifies “that such order
involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially

Appellate Case: 11-701 Document: 01018621951 Date Filed: 04/14/2011 Page: 2

advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” The April 6, 2011 order does
not include the required language. In addition, the order was issued by a
magistrate judge. Except for proceedings conducted by a magistrate judge upon
designation by a district court judge and consent of the parties pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c), a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal taken
directly from a decision of a magistrate judge. See Colorado Building &
Construction Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen Construction Co., 879 F. 2d 809
(10 th Cir. 1989); Phillips v. Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2006).
In view of the above, petitioner shall show cause, in writing, w ithin 21
days of the date of this order, why his petition for permission to appeal should
not be denied.
Failure to respond to this order within the required 21-day period may
result in dismissal of this matter for lack of prosecution, without further notice.
See 10 th Cir. R. 42.1.

Entered for the Court
ELISABETH SHUM AKER, Clerk of Court

by:
Christine Van Coney
Counsel to the C lerk

2