Case ID: f-appx_379/html/0349-02.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

Daniel F. RHODES, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CITY OF ARLINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10779.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 20, 2010.
    William J. Dunleavy, Law Offices of William J. Dunleavy PC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Harris Fugate, Denise V. Wilkerson, City Attorney’s Office, Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Judge Wiener concurs in the result.
    
   PER CURIAM:

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Because there is a fact dispute about negligence or intent, if any, to be proven, there is no collateral order that warrants interlocutory jurisdiction. See Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795 (5th Cir.1996). Furthermore, the fingei’print cards are tangible property, leaving no legal issue presented in view of the order appealed, where the court denied judgment because there is a fact issue whether negligent use of the fingerprint card caused Rhodes’s injury. See Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.2004).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.