George Jones v. Dustin Anderson, No. 15-10514 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 24, 2018.
Download PDF
Case: 15-10514 Document: 00513834945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10514 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GEORGE JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DUSTIN ANDERSON, Sergeant, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13-CV-122 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant George Alvin Jones, Texas prisoner # 1436799, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and grant of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, and we may do so sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Jones’s Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-10514 Document: 00513834945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2017 No. 15-10514 “Response to Order Granting Summary Judgment,” which seeks to have his case reinstated and tried before a jury, and which was filed within 28 days of the district court’s entry of judgment, is properly construed as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. See United States v. Gallardo, 915 F.2d 149, 150 n.2 (5th Cir. 1990) (construing post-judgment objection to the magistrate judge’s report as a Rule 59(e) motion). When a litigant files a timely Rule 59(e) motion and a notice of appeal, the notice of appeal does not become effective until the entry of the order disposing of the motion. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (B)(i); Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). This appeal is premature because the district court has not yet decided the constructive Rule 59(e) motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i); Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 751-52 (5th Cir. 2005); Burt, 14 F. 3d at 260-61. We therefore remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing it to rule on Jones’s pending post-judgment motion. Jones’s appeal is held in abeyance pending such disposition by the district court. REMANDED FOR LIMITED ABEYANCE. 2 PURPOSE; APPEAL HELD IN
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
