Akomolafe v. Cornell Corr Corp

Fifth Circuit

Akomolafe v. Cornell Corr Corp

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 2004

Docket03-51414

StatusUnpublished

This text of Akomolafe v. Cornell Corr Corp (Akomolafe v. Cornell Corr Corp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Akomolafe v. Cornell Corr Corp, (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 21, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 03-51414 Summary Calendar

ABAYOMI CHARLES AKOMOLAFE, also known as Abayomi Charles Akomolafe, also known as Charles Abayomi Akomolafe,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CORNELL CORRECTIONS CORP., ET AL.,

Defendants,

CORNELL CORRECTIONS CORP.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CV-122-FM

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this civil rights case, the district court entered a

final judgment dismissing the action on December 4, 2003. On

December 15, 2003, the plaintiff filed a pro se notice of appeal

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. from the judgment entered December 4, 2003. Thereafter, the

district court advised this court that it was inclined to reinstate

the action in order to correct an error in the judgment of

dismissal pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60.

The district court was divested of jurisdiction by the

filing of a timely notice of appeal. See Alvestad v. Monsanto Co.,

671 F.2d 908, 911 n.2 (5th Cir. 1982). Under these circumstances,

we treat the district court’s informal indication that it is

inclined to grant reinstatement as a request for remand and

authorization to grant relief pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60. We

remand the case to the district court to conduct such further

proceedings as may be necessary. See Rutherford v. Harris County,

Tex., 197 F.3d 173, 190 (5th Cir. 1999). We do not retain

jurisdiction and any party desiring to appeal the district court’s

order on remand must file a new notice of appeal.

REMANDED.

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