Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10514/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10514-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10514

Summary Calendar 

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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10514 Document: 00513834945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2017
No. 15-10514

2 

“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 PURPOSE; APPEAL HELD IN 

ABEYANCE. 

 Case: 15-10514 Document: 00513834945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2017