Tandy L. Hairston v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Tandy L. Hairston v. United States

247 F. App'x 857

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 23, 2007

Docket06-2372

StatusUnpublished

This text of 247 F. App'x 857 (Tandy L. Hairston v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tandy L. Hairston v. United States, 247 F. App'x 857 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In March 2005 Tandy Hairston sought return of a Rolex watch as well as numerous other items seized by the FBI in November 2001 as part of a criminal investigation. The district court 1 dismissed Hairston’s claim for return of the watch, and Hairston appeals.

We conclude we lack jurisdiction to review the March 2006 order. While the district court dismissed some of Hairston’s claims in a January 6 order, the court has not rendered final judgment on Hairston’s claim for property on a “List of Items To Be Returned,” which he submitted to the court on January 23. Thus, the March order, which disposed of only the watch claim, did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have jurisdiction over district court’s final decisions); Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 218 F.3d 926, 927 (8th Cir.2000) (decision is not usually final unless it effectively ends litigation on merits and leaves nothing for district court to do but execute judgment). If the court intended the March 2006 order to be a partial final judgment, certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) was required. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (when action raises more than one claim for relief, court may direct entry of final judgment as to fewer than all claims only upon “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment”; in absence of such determination and direction, order which *859 adjudicates fewer than all claims does not terminate action as to any claim); Stock-man’s Water Co. v. Vaca Partners, 425 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.2005) (district court’s certification was ineffective to provide jurisdiction over appeal where certification order did not include analysis of relevant factors under Rule 54(b)); cf. Bullock v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 817 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir.1987) (orders directing entry of final judgment as to fewer than all parties must, either in express words or by unmistakably clear implication, contain findings specifically required by Rule 54).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In March 2005 Tandy Hairston sought return of a Rolex watch as well as numerous other items seized by the FBI in November 2001 as part of a criminal investigation. The district court 1 dismissed Hairston’s claim for return of the watch, and Hairston appeals.

We conclude we lack jurisdiction to review the March 2006 order. While the district court dismissed some of Hairston’s claims in a January 6 order, the court has not rendered final judgment on Hairston’s claim for property on a “List of Items To Be Returned,” which he submitted to the court on January 23. Thus, the March order, which disposed of only the watch claim, did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have jurisdiction over district court’s final decisions); Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 218 F.3d 926, 927 (8th Cir.2000) (decision is not usually final unless it effectively ends litigation on merits and leaves nothing for district court to do but execute judgment). If the court intended the March 2006 order to be a partial final judgment, certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) was required. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (when action raises more than one claim for relief, court may direct entry of final judgment as to fewer than all claims only upon “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment”; in absence of such determination and direction, order which *859 adjudicates fewer than all claims does not terminate action as to any claim); Stock-man’s Water Co. v. Vaca Partners, 425 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.2005) (district court’s certification was ineffective to provide jurisdiction over appeal where certification order did not include analysis of relevant factors under Rule 54(b)); cf. Bullock v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 817 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir.1987) (orders directing entry of final judgment as to fewer than all parties must, either in express words or by unmistakably clear implication, contain findings specifically required by Rule 54).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 F. App'x 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tandy-l-hairston-v-united-states-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack