Case ID: f-appx_82/html/0864-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Duane Herman CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BURNET COUNTY JAIL; et al., Defendants, Jackie FLOWERS; Judith Bennett; Peggy Edwards, Jailer, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 03-50327.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 9, 2003.
    Duane Herman Carter, pro se, Kings-land, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jennifer A. Powell, Kevin Wayne Cole, Cole & Powell, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jackie Flowers, Judith Bennett, and Peggy Edwards appeal their denial of qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. They argue that the summary judgment record is devoid of evidence to support the factual findings and inferences of the district court that led to its determination that their conduct was objectively unreasonable.

The denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is immediately appealable only when based on an issue of law. Rodriguez v. Neeley, 169 F.3d 220, 222 (5th Cir.1999). If we were to entertain the merits of the appellate argument raised herein, it would necessitate a review of the propriety of the district court’s assessment of the summary judgment evidence, as opposed to taking, as given, the facts it assumed and determining as a matter of law whether the defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable. See Nerren v. Livingston Police Dep’t, 86 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir.1996). We are, however, without jurisdiction to review a district court’s assessment of what facts are established by or inferable from the summary judgment record. See Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir.1999). We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.