* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

1 This opinion is rendered contemporaneously with our

opinion in James K. Terrell v. City of El Paso, 04-51281 (5th

Cir. Apr. __, 2006) (unpublished).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51283

Summary Calendar

JAMES K. TERRELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF EL PASO; CARLOS LEON, Chief; ALFONSO NEVAREZ, Officer;

SAUL VILLALOBOS, Officer; RODNEY MOOERS, Officer; MARK TELLES,

Officer; DEBRA PONKO, Officer; ROBERT ROMERO, Officer; JACK

MATTHEWS, Sergeant; HARRY FARLOW, Sergeant; WADE FORRISTER,

Sergeant; ANNA NAVEDO, Detective; TED PORRAS, Detective; COUNTY

OF EL PASO; JAIME ESPARZA, Individually and as District Attorney;

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(3:03-CV-364)

--------------------

Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant James K. Terrell appeals the district

court’s denial of his motion for declaratory judgment and his

motion to recuse Judge Kathleen Cardone.1 As we are without
2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The courts of appeals ... shall

have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the

district courts of the United States ....”).

3 McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 350 (5th Cir.

2004) (citation omitted).

2

jurisdiction to review the denial of either motion, this appeal is

dismissed without prejudice.

With some exceptions not applicable here, our jurisdiction

extends only to final decisions of the district court.2 In

general, a “final decision” is one that “ends the litigation on the

merits and leaves nothing for the [district] court to do but

execute the judgment.”3 Terrell’s appeal is ineffective at this

time because there are still claims and issues pending in the

district court, including the City’s, County’s, and District

Attorney’s motions for summary judgment.

We are thus without jurisdiction to review the district

court’s denial of Terrell’s motion for declaratory judgment because

it is not a final decision. In fact, the district court did not

even reach the merits of the motion, but instead denied it without

prejudice because of Terrell’s failure to comply with the district

court’s local rule on filing such motions.

We likewise lack jurisdiction to consider Terrell’s appeal

from the district court’s denial of his motion to recuse.
4 In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 614 F.2d 958,

960-61 (5th Cir. 1980). We acknowledge that our holding on the

absence of appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of a

motion to recuse is inconsistent with another panel’s disposition

of the same issue in the related case of Jacob Telles v. City of

El Paso, 04-51298 (5th Cir. Jan. 25, 2006) (unpublished). But

Corrugated, which predates Telles, is the controlling precedent

and we must follow it.

3

Questions concerning the disqualification of judges are not

immediately appealable.4

Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of Terrell’s appeal

from the denial of his motion for declaratory judgment and his

motion to recuse. This appeal is

DISMISSED without PREJUDICE.