Harris v. State of MS

Fifth Circuit

Harris v. State of MS

103 F. App'x 850

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 2004

Docket03-60912

StatusUnpublished

This text of 103 F. App'x 850 (Harris v. State of MS) 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

Harris v. State of MS, 103 F. App'x 850 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jimmy Harris filed a civil rights action against the State of Mississippi and numerous individual defendants. The parties consented to adjudication by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Harris noticed an appeal from two orders issued by the magistrate judge: (1) an order refusing to reconsider a previous order denying leave to file an amended complaint, and (2) an order denying class certification.

*851 The parties dispute whether this court enjoys jurisdiction. As a court of limited jurisdiction, this court has authority to hear appeals only from “final decisions” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, nonfinal judgments certified as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), or some other nonfinal order or judgment to which an exception applies. See Briargrove Shopping Center Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enter., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 538 (5th Cir. 1999).

The orders appealed from are not final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978); Click v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir.1987), and we can discern no basis for appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Jimmy Harris filed a civil rights action against the State of Mississippi and numerous individual defendants. The parties consented to adjudication by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Harris noticed an appeal from two orders issued by the magistrate judge: (1) an order refusing to reconsider a previous order denying leave to file an amended complaint, and (2) an order denying class certification.

*851 The parties dispute whether this court enjoys jurisdiction. As a court of limited jurisdiction, this court has authority to hear appeals only from “final decisions” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, nonfinal judgments certified as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), or some other nonfinal order or judgment to which an exception applies. See Briargrove Shopping Center Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enter., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 538 (5th Cir. 1999).

The orders appealed from are not final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978); Click v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir.1987), and we can discern no basis for appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F. App'x 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-of-ms-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack