in an action have been dismissed. Pursuant to Rule 54(b), any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. Accordingly, without express direction for the entry of judgment on particular claims under Rule 54(b), court action which terminates fewer than all claims in a case is considered an interlocutory rather than a final decision and subject to revision at any time. See also Hill v. Henderson, 195 F.3d 671, 672 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Lewis v. United States, 290 F.Supp.2d 1, 3
holding that unless trial court certifies trial rule 28 determination as final under trial rule 54b it remains interlocutory holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification holding that such an order is not sufficiently final to be suitable for appellate review holding that a district court order dismissing one of several claims without making an explicit determination under rule 54b is not a final decision subject to appellate review holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired