Tenth Circuit Clarifies: Requests to Reply to a Magistrate’s R&R Do Not Toll the Appeal Deadline; Finality Assessed on the Face of the Judgment

Introduction

In MacIntyre v. Supreme Court of Colorado, No. 24-1476 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025), a Tenth Circuit panel (Judges Hartz, Phillips, and Moritz) addressed two interrelated appellate-procedure questions arising from a pro se civil action dismissed by the District of Colorado:

Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the district court’s dismissal where the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after entry of final judgment; and
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying postjudgment relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and in denying an extension of time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).

The appeal grew out of a clerical mishap: the district court did not see Plaintiff–Appellant Holly MacIntyre’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of her objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (R&R) before entering final judgment. MacIntyre argued that this error meant the judgment was not final or, alternatively, that it warranted postjudgment relief or an extension of time to appeal.

The panel’s resolution reinforces several bedrock appellate principles: timeliness of notices of appeal is jurisdictional; only certain timely postjudgment motions toll the appeal period; finality is determined on the face of the district court’s judgment; and a denial of Rule 60(b) relief is separately appealable but does not reopen review of an untimely underlying judgment. The court also approved the district court’s handling of the belated reply request, noting that replies to objections to an R&R are not permitted and that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to object without a reply.

Summary of the Opinion

No jurisdiction over the underlying judgment: The court dismissed the appeal from the dismissal order because MacIntyre’s notice of appeal was untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). The 30-day clock began running on September 27, 2024; it expired October 28, 2024 (because day 30 fell on a Sunday). MacIntyre’s November 7 Rule 60(b) motion did not toll the deadline because it was filed more than 28 days after judgment and was not one of the timely postjudgment motions enumerated in Rule 4(a)(4)(A) that extend the appeal time. Her request for leave to file a reply to R&R objections did not toll or extend the appeal deadline.
Finality is judged on the face of the judgment: The panel rejected the contention that judgment was nonfinal until the district court addressed the reply leave motion. The judgment disposed of all issues on its face, which suffices for finality.
Affirmance of postjudgment denials: The court had jurisdiction to review the November 13, 2024 order denying Rule 60(b) relief and denying an extension of time under Rule 4(a)(5) because MacIntyre’s December 2 notice of appeal was timely as to that order. On the merits, the panel held:
- Rule 60(b): No abuse of discretion. The district court reasonably concluded that the docketing error was harmless because replies to objections to an R&R are not permitted, and MacIntyre had adequate opportunity to raise objections without a reply. Her finality argument failed as a matter of law.
- Rule 4(a)(5) extension: No abuse of discretion in finding no “excusable neglect” or “good cause.” The proper course, the panel explained, would have been to promptly file a timely Rule 59 or Rule 60 motion within 28 days—motions that would have automatically reset the appeal clock under Rule 4(a)(4)(A).

Although the concluding sentence states “We affirm the district court’s judgment,” the opinion—read as a whole—makes clear that the panel affirmed only the denial of postjudgment relief and dismissed review of the underlying judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

Background and Procedural History

July 2023: MacIntyre sues the Supreme Court of Colorado and its Justices (official capacities) and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
July 2024: Magistrate judge issues an R&R recommending granting defendants’ motions to dismiss.
September 26, 2024: MacIntyre submits a motion seeking leave to file a reply in support of her objections to the R&R. Due to clerical error, the motion is not docketed until October 25, 2024.
September 27, 2024: The district court adopts the R&R and enters final judgment disposing of the case.
November 7, 2024: MacIntyre moves for postjudgment relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6), or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(5).
November 13, 2024: District court denies the postjudgment motion, finding the docketing error harmless (replies to R&R objections are not permitted) and concluding that MacIntyre failed to show excusable neglect or good cause for an extension.
December 2, 2024: MacIntyre files her notice of appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) and 4(a)(4)(A): The court anchored its jurisdictional analysis in Rule 4. A civil notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of final judgment (4(a)(1)(A)). Certain postjudgment motions, if filed within 28 days, toll or reset the appeal period (4(a)(4)(A)). MacIntyre’s Rule 60(b) motion filed 41 days after judgment did not qualify, so it did not extend her deadline. The court also noted no authority supports treating a request to file a reply to R&R objections as tolling or extending the appeal period.
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005): The panel cited Garrett to reiterate that pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules, including jurisdictional appeal deadlines.
Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444, 450 (10th Cir. 2006): Applied to the finality question, Moya teaches that a judgment’s finality is generally assessed “on its face”—if it purports to dispose of all issues, it is final, regardless of whether the court overlooked a particular argument. The remedy for any oversight is a timely motion for reconsideration, not postponement of finality.
Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300, 1305–06 (10th Cir. 2016): Two propositions are drawn from Lebahn: (1) an appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief brings up only that denial, not the underlying judgment; and (2) review of a Rule 60(b) denial is for abuse of discretion, a deferential standard.
Johnson v. Spencer, 950 F.3d 680, 701 (10th Cir. 2020): Cited for the principle that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is “reserved for exceptional circumstances,” underscoring the narrowness of that catchall provision.
Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1206 (10th Cir. 2004): Provides the abuse-of-discretion standard governing review of orders denying extensions of time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(5).

Although not cited, the panel’s jurisdictional posture is consistent with Supreme Court authority treating the civil notice-of-appeal deadline as jurisdictional, most prominently Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).

Legal Reasoning

Untimely notice of appeal as a jurisdictional bar: The court began with Rule 4(a)(1)(A)’s 30-day deadline. Judgment entered September 27, 2024; day 30 fell on Sunday, October 27, so the deadline ran to Monday, October 28, 2024. MacIntyre’s notice on December 2 was therefore untimely as to the underlying judgment. The Rule 60(b) motion filed on November 7 did not toll the time: under Rule 4(a)(4)(A), tolling only occurs if the specified motions are filed within 28 days of judgment. A request for leave to file a reply to objections to an R&R is not a tolling motion under Rule 4(a)(4)(A), and there was no authority suggesting otherwise.
Finality assessed on the face of the judgment: Applying Moya, the panel rejected the argument that the judgment was nonfinal until the court addressed the reply leave motion. The judgment’s face indicated that it resolved all issues in the case; the desire to file a reply on objections to the R&R did not impair finality. The proper mechanism to address any perceived oversight would have been a timely postjudgment motion (Rule 59(e) or Rule 60) filed within 28 days.
Separate appealability of Rule 60(b) denial and standard of review: Although the court lacked jurisdiction over the underlying judgment, it had jurisdiction to review the November 13 order denying Rule 60(b) relief because the December 2 notice was timely as to that order. Under Lebahn, only the denial itself—not the merits of the underlying dismissal—was before the court, and the standard was abuse of discretion.
Rule 60(b) relief properly denied: MacIntyre’s thesis—that the judgment could not be final until the reply motion was addressed—was a legal non-starter given the face-of-judgment finality principle. As to the belated request for a reply, the district court reasonably found the docketing error harmless because replies to objections to an R&R are not permitted and because MacIntyre had ample opportunity to present objections without a reply. There was no arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness to support an abuse-of-discretion finding. Nor did she demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” required by Rule 60(b)(6).
No abuse of discretion in denying a Rule 4(a)(5) extension: Rule 4(a)(5) allows district courts to extend the notice-of-appeal deadline on a showing of “excusable neglect or good cause.” The panel agreed that MacIntyre did not make that showing. The correct response to the entered judgment would have been to file a timely Rule 59(e) or Rule 60 motion within 28 days, which would have reset the appeal clock under Rule 4(a)(4)(A). Her failure to employ these established mechanisms did not amount to excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension.

Impact

While this order and judgment is nonprecedential (except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel), it has persuasive force and offers practical guidance for litigants and courts in the Tenth Circuit:

Procedural clarity: It underscores that ancillary filings—such as a request for leave to file a reply to R&R objections—do not toll or delay finality or the time to appeal.
Face-of-judgment rule reinforced: Finality turns on what the judgment purports to do on its face, not on whether the court considered every sub-argument or was aware of every collateral filing.
Strict timeliness for appellate jurisdiction: Parties—pro se and represented alike—must either file a notice of appeal within 30 days or file one of the enumerated postjudgment motions within 28 days to toll or reset the deadline.
Practical roadmap for preserving appellate rights: The panel essentially offers a “checklist”: upon entry of judgment, promptly file (a) a protective notice of appeal, and/or (b) a timely Rule 59(e) motion or a qualifying Rule 60 motion within 28 days if reconsideration is sought; do not rely on collateral motions or docketing anomalies.
District court docket management: The opinion indicates that clerical errors will be assessed for actual prejudice; where the local rules prohibit certain filings (like replies to R&R objections) and the litigant had an adequate opportunity to be heard, such errors are likely to be deemed harmless.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Final Judgment: The court’s last word in a case at the trial level. If the judgment, on its face, resolves all claims and issues, it is “final,” triggering the time to appeal—even if a party believes the court overlooked a point.
Notice of Appeal Deadline (FRAP 4(a)(1)(A)): In most civil cases, you have 30 days from entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. If day 30 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline rolls to the next business day.
Tolling Postjudgment Motions (FRAP 4(a)(4)(A)): Certain motions—like Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a judgment, or Rule 60 motions filed within 28 days—stop and reset the appeal clock. A motion filed after 28 days does not.
Rule 60(b) Relief: A mechanism to set aside a final judgment for limited reasons (e.g., mistake or excusable neglect under (b)(1); extraordinary reasons under (b)(6)). It is not a substitute for a timely appeal and is reviewed deferentially for abuse of discretion.
Appeal from Rule 60(b) Denial vs. Underlying Judgment: An appeal from the denial of Rule 60(b) relief allows the appellate court to review only that denial, not the merits of the original judgment.
Rule 4(a)(5) Extension: The district court may extend the time to appeal if the appellant shows “excusable neglect” (a flexible, equitable standard often guided by factors like reason for delay and good faith) or “good cause” (typically where events beyond the party’s control prevented timely filing). Mere uncertainty about filings or reliance on non-tolling motions rarely suffices.
Magistrate Judge’s R&R Process: A magistrate judge issues recommendations; parties may file objections. Local rules often govern whether replies to objections are permitted. Even when leave is sought, the existence of such a request does not affect finality or appellate deadlines.

Key Practical Takeaways

File a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment unless you file a tolling motion under Rule 4(a)(4)(A) within 28 days. When in doubt, file a protective notice of appeal.
To seek reconsideration without forfeiting appeal rights, file a timely Rule 59(e) or qualifying Rule 60 motion within 28 days; doing so resets the appeal period after the motion is decided.
Do not assume that motions for leave to file replies or other collateral submissions will toll or extend the appeal deadline. They do not.
If you miss the 30-day deadline, a Rule 4(a)(5) motion for extension requires a concrete showing of excusable neglect or good cause; mere confusion or docketing mistakes that cause no real prejudice typically will not suffice.
Pro se status does not relax jurisdictional or procedural requirements; the same rules apply to all litigants.

Conclusion

MacIntyre v. Supreme Court of Colorado delivers a clear procedural message: appellate deadlines are unforgiving, finality is judged on the face of the district court’s judgment, and only the timely filing of specified postjudgment motions will toll the time to appeal. A request to file a reply to objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R neither affects finality nor extends appellate deadlines, and docketing errors will be deemed harmless absent demonstrable prejudice—especially where local rules do not permit the filing sought.

By reaffirming that a denial of Rule 60(b) relief is separately appealable yet does not reopen review of an untimely underlying judgment, the panel underscores a well-settled but frequently misunderstood point of appellate practice. The opinion offers a practical blueprint for preserving appellate rights: act within 30 days, use Rule 59(e) or timely Rule 60 motions to reset the clock if reconsideration is sought, and do not rely on collateral filings to extend time.

Although nonprecedential, the decision is a concise, persuasive reinforcement of the Tenth Circuit’s insistence on strict compliance with jurisdictional appeal deadlines and its commitment to orderly finality principles.

Case: MacIntyre v. Supreme Court of Colorado, No. 24-1476, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, decided November 7, 2025. Panel: Hartz, Phillips, Moritz, Circuit Judges. Order and judgment designated nonprecedential (citable for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1).