Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-31034/USCOURTS-ca5-09-31034-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-31034

Summary Calendar

BRYAN KEITH STANLEY, also known as Tim Fowler,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

OUACHITA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ROYCE TONEY; MEDICAL STAFF

OF OUACHITA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE;

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OUACHITA PARISH; POLICE JURY OF

OUACHITA PARISH, Financial Commissioner; LOUISIANA STATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; CONWAY HOSPITAL; UNKNOWN

DEPUTY, Maintenance for Ouachita Correctional Center; RICKY MARTIN,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:09-CV-863

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Bryan Keith Stanley, former Louisiana prisoner # 2602323, proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint against various

defendants alleging that he was injured as a result of unsafe conditions at the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 25, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 09-31034 Document: 00511214208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2010
No. 09-31034

Ouachita Correctional Center, that he was denied adequate medical care, and

that the defendants failed to protect him from assaults perpetrated by inmates.

On September 14, 2009, the district court issued a ruling and judgment

dismissing Stanley’s claims related to unsafe prison conditions and the

defendants’ failure to protect him from inmate violence. The district court

remanded Stanley’s inadequate medical care claim to the magistrate judge for

further proceedings. On September 19, 2009, the magistrate judge issued a

memorandum ordering that Stanley amend his complaint and provide specific

factual allegations supporting his remaining claim. On October 21, 2009,

Stanley filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s September 14, 2009,

judgment and the magistrate judge’s September 21, 2009, memorandum order.

The district court dismissed Stanley’s denial of adequate medical care claim and

entered a final judgment on January 12, 2010.

We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua sponte, if necessary.

Clark v. Johnson, 278 F.3d 459, 460 (5th Cir. 2002), abrogation on other grounds

recognized by Rosales v. Quarterman, 565 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 2009). The

district court’s September 14, 2009 judgment did not dispose of Stanley’s denial

of adequate medical care claim. Thus, neither it nor the magistrate judge’s

September 21, 2009 memorandum order was a final judgment for purposes of 28

U.S.C. § 1291. See McLaughlin v. Mississippi Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 350 (5th

Cir. 2004). The appeal does not fit within any of the categories of appealable

interlocutory orders listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292, the district court did not certify

the judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and neither the district court’s judgment nor the magistrate

judge’s memorandum order resolved issues separate from the merits that would

be unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See § 1292; Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). Finally, although a

premature notice of appeal may be deemed timely filed under Rule 4(a)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Stanley’s appeal is not saved by that rule

2

 Case: 09-31034 Document: 00511214208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2010
No. 09-31034

because the district court had not finally disposed of all of the claims in the

judgment from which Stanley appealed. See FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors

Mortgage Co., 498 U.S. 269, 276 (1991); United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960,

961-63 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider the instant

appeal.

Accordingly, Stanley’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

3

 Case: 09-31034 Document: 00511214208 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/25/2010