*2 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

Wayne Gordon appeals, pro se , from a magistrate judge’s order deferring initial disclosures and the district court’s without-prejudice dismissal conditioned on execution of settlement agreement. The Court’s examination of the record reveals that there is no such order by a magistrate judge, and even if there were, it is not a final judgment and was not appealed to the district court. ^[1] Moreover, the district court’s dismissal from which Gordon appeals was a dismissal without prejudice as the district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. ^[2] Even if we construe Gordon’s appeal to be from the district court’s final dismissal with prejudice, he consented to that dismissal as a term of the settlement he agreed to. ^[3] Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction. The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

[1] 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Central Progressive Bank v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. , 658 F.2d 377, 383 (5th Cir. 1981).

[2] LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc. , 528 F.2d 601, 603 (5th Cir. 1976).

[3] Tel-Phonic Services, Inc. v. TBS Int’l, Inc. , 975 F.2d 1134, 1137 (5th Cir. 1992). 2