Harper v. Wyoming Department of Corrections, 680 F. App'x 787

Robert Harper, a pro se Wyoming prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint that the district court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a plausible claim.
After judgment, Harper moved for leave to file an amended complaint; a magistrate judge denied that postjudgment motion.
Harper sought reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s denial; the magistrate judge also denied the motion to reconsider.
Harper had not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The district court did not enter a final, appealable order addressing Harper’s motion to reconsider; the panel reviewed whether the magistrate judge had authority to enter the final denial.
The Tenth Circuit concluded the magistrate judge lacked authority to enter the final order denying reconsideration and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a magistrate judge could enter a final order denying Harper’s motion to reconsider a postjudgment motion without Harper’s consent	Harper sought review and enforcement of the magistrate judge’s denial of leave to amend and treated the magistrate’s denial of reconsideration as final	Defendants treated the magistrate’s order as a final decision and asserted no jurisdictional defect	The magistrate judge was without authority to enter the final order denying reconsideration absent Harper’s consent; the district court was required to review the matter, so no final appealable order existed
Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction over the appeal	Harper contended the denial was appealable	Defendants argued the order was final and appealable	The appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there was no final appealable order from the district court

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (appellate courts must ensure jurisdiction exists)
First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992 (10th Cir. 2000) (magistrate authority depends on § 636; dispositive matters require district court de novo review)
Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809 (10th Cir. 1989) (magistrate judges may not enter final appealable decisions absent designation and consent; § 636 does not expressly authorize delegation of postjudgment matters)
Phillips v. Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court must review the basis for a magistrate’s postjudgment order when reconsideration is sought)