### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 30407

LEE LUCAS , Plaintiff

- Appell ee

v. JERRY GOODWIN, individually and in his official capacity; PAULA MILWEE, individually and in her official capacity; ROBERT RACHAL, individually and in his official capacity; RAHMAN SINGH, individually and in his official capacity , Defendant s
- Appell ants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:16

- CV

- 425

Before KING 1 , HIGGINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM: * Lee Lucas, Louisiana prisoner # 338382, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that officials at the David Wade Correctional Center and
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment,

1 Judge King concurs in the judgment only.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 10, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-30407 Document: 00515111776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2019No. 18

- 30407

2 because they denied him a root canal treatment allegedly “prescribed” by a prison dentist

. T he district court rejected appellants’ assertion s of qualified immunity and denied their motion for summary judgment on the individual capacity claims that Lucas asserted against them. They now appeal

. A distr ict court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment is ordinarily not immediately appealable, but the denial of a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is a collateral order that is capable of
immediate review. S ee Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); Kinney

v. Weaver , 367 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). However, in such an appeal, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to issues of law. Kinney , 367 F.3d at
346. “That is, [this court] has jurisdiction only to decide whether the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that officials are not entitled to qualified immunity on a given set of facts.” Id. at 347. Here, appellants attack only factual dis putes that lie beyond our jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal. They contest the district court’s finding that, read in the light most favorable to Lucas, the record establishe s a factual dispute as to whether Lucas was “prescribed” a specific dental treat ment or whether tooth extraction was instead appropriate. We lack jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal to consider a “challenge [to] the district court’s assessments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.” Kinney , 367 F.3d at
347. By contrast, appell ants have not properly raised any challenge to the materiality of the factual dispute found by the district court, which we would have jurisdiction to review. See id. (explaining that we have jurisdiction to review “the materiality of any factual disputes, but not their genuineness ”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). That is, appellants have not argue d that they would still be entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment Case: 18-30407 Document: 00515111776 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2019No. 18

- 30407

3 even if the prison dentist “prescribed a treatment other than extraction ,” the “given set of facts” on which the district court’s decision wa s based. Because appellants have neglected to identif y a legal issue that we may
review in this interlocutory appeal, see Kinney , 367 F.3d at 346, they have failed to invoke this court’s jurisdiction, see SCF Waxler Marine, L.L.C. v. ARIS
T M/V , 902 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2018)

. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id

. Case: 18-30407 Document: 00515111776 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/10/2019