### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30209 Summary Calendar

SEAN C. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. JEFFREY TRAVIS, Warden, Rayburn Correctional Center; BESSIE CARTER, Director of Nursing at B.B. Sixty Rayburn Correctional Cent e r ; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:09-CV-4361

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sean C. Walker, Louisiana prisoner # 126912, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against numerous defendants, including the head of administration of B.B. Sixty Rayburn Correctional Center (the head of administration). Wal k e r asserted that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and to his medic al n e e ds after he was attacked and U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June18 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30209 Document: 00511890671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2012No. 11-30209

injured by his cellma t e . Th e district court dismissed Walker’s complaint as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; however, the judgment failed to mention Walker’s c l ai ms against the head of administration, although it specifically dismissed Walker’s claims against the other defendants. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from “‘final decisions’” of district courts. Witherspoon v. White, 111 F.3d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1997). Generally, a judgment adjudicating the rights of fewer than all of the parties is not a final decision in the absence of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification directing entry of final judgment as to those parties. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Tullos-Pierremont , 894 F.2d 1469, 1471 (5th Cir. 1990). In circumstances in which a court order is ambiguous as to what parties and claims are being disposed of and “the district court clearly intend[ed] to effect a final dismi s s al of a claim, we will construe [the district court’s] order accordingly , despite ambiguous language that might indicate otherwise.” Picco v. Global Marine Drilling Co. , 900 F.2d 846, 8 4 9 n . 4 ( 5th Cir.1990). The head of administration was serv ed with Walker’s complaint and amended complaint; thus, he was a party to the suit. See Nagle v. Lee , 807 F.2d 435, 440 (5th Cir. 1987). Although the district court’ s j udgment was silent regarding Walker’s claims against the head of administration, the court might have intended th a t th e judgment be final in light of the fact that the district court also denied Walker’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute Robert C. Tanner as the head of administration because Walker had f ail e d t o state a claim against Tanner. See Picco , 900 F.2d at 849 n. 4. We conclude that

we should order a limited remand to allow the district court to indicate whether the judgment of February 2, 2011, was intended to be the final judgment in this
case, and if not, for the court to determine whether or not it now will enter a final judgment.

2 Case: 11-30209 Document: 00511890671 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2012No. 11-30209

IT IS ORDERED that a limited remand occur for the district court to enter

an order or judgment as indicated. Proc e e di n g s on this appeal are stayed pending the receipt of the district court’s order or other response.

3 Case: 11-30209 Document: 00511890671 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/18/2012