Rufus Catchings v. Ken Salazar
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Rufus Catchings appeals pro se from a magistrate judge’s order requiring him to execute a settlement agreement in his Title VII action alleging racial discrimination. We dismiss the appeal and vacate the district court’s 2012 order.
Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the district court entered a final order dismissing the action with prejudice in 2011, and did not retain jurisdiction. The district court, therefore, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue a magistrate judge order enforcing the settlement in 2012. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 73 , 117 S.Ct. 1055 , 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (this court has an obligation to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction and that of the lower court); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 , 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a motion to enforce settlement following entry of a stipulated dismissal with prejudice where there was no provision in the settlement agreement retaining jurisdiction, and the settlement agreement was not incorporated into the order dismissing with prejudice).