* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-31277

Summary Calendar

_____________________

PENELOPE TREECE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID HENDERSON,

Defendant,

MOSSY MOTORS, INC.;

MIC PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-3108-K)

_________________________________________________________________ June 30, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mossy Motors, Inc. and MIC Property & Casualty Insurance Corp.

(collectively “Mossy”) appeal an award o f Rule 16(f) sanctions.

Beca use the sanctions have not been entered as part of a final

judgment, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice.2

This case arises out of an accident in which Penelope Treece’s

car was struck by a pickup truck owned by Mossy Motors, Inc. Prior

to trial, the district judge ordered that a settlement conference

be held before Magistrate Judge Alma Chase z. At the time the

conference was held, Treece was seeking damages of $2.6 million.

Mossy offered only $25,000.

Apparently no progres s toward settlement was made at this

first conference, and the magistrate ju d ge instructed Mossy’s

counsel of record to make a corporate representative available for

a second conference the following day. Nonetheless, this

conference also proved futile.

On October 9, 1996, the magistrate judge entered a Minute

Entry sanctioning Mossy. The judge found that “it was readily

apparent that defendant was not prepared to address the issue of

settlement” at the conference. The court ordered that a third

conference be held two weeks later. The order also provided that

because Mossy was “ill-prepared” for the conference, it “shall

reimburse plaintiff for the cost of her travel to New Orleans and

her lodging while here as well as any wages she lost in connection

with her trip.” Mossy was also ordered to pay the cost of Treece

attending the third settlement conference.

Before the third settlement conference was held, Mossy filed

a Motion to Review Magistrate Judge’s Order with the district3

court. In an October 24, 1996 Minute Entry, the district court

concluded that the magistrate judge’s ord er “was appropriate and

not clearly erroneo us or contrary to law” and accordingly denied

Mossy’s motion.

At the third conference, Mossy offere d a settlement of

approximately $80,000. No agreement was reached, however, and the

case proceeded to trial. The jury ultimately awarded $42,000 to

Treece. Mossy’s notice of appeal refers only to the award of

sanctions. Mossy does not appeal the jury’s award, and the notice

of appeal refers to no judgment.

It therefore appears that the sanctions were ne ver properly

entered as a judgment against Mossy. We will not review the merits

of this appeal. The record on appeal only reveals two court

documents relating to sanctions: the magistrate’s Minute Entry of

October 9, 1996 and the district court’s Minute Entry of

October 24, 1996. No document approaches the specificity required

by Fed. R. Civ. P . 58 to qualify as an entry of judgment. We

cannot even determine the exact amount of the sanctions from the

record: the magistrate’s order did not specify the amount, the

district court’s order describes the sanctions as totaling

“approximately $2,400," while the appellant’s brief notes that the1 The district court’s $2,400 estimate of the sanctions appears

to include only Treece’s cost for attending the first two days of

the conference. Mossy’s $3,000 figure may reflect the additional

cost of Treece attending the third conference.

4 sanctions were “approximately $3,000.” 1 Although a judgment of

$42,000 was entered on November 14, 1996, this amount appears to

include only the damages awarded by the jury to compensate Treece

for injuries resulting from the car accident, and does not include

the sanctions. We therefore dismiss this appeal without prejudice.

If the district court enters a valid judgment relating to these

sanctions pursu ant to Rule 58, Mossy may refile this appeal.

However, we must observe that even had a final judgment been

entered in this case, the record before us is not sufficiently

developed to determine whether the magistra te judge abused her

discretion in ordering sanctions. The order does not provide any

factual support for the conclusion t hat the defendant was not

prepared to “discuss settlement in a meaningful fashion” at the

conf erence. If a final judgment is entered in this case, the

record shou ld be developed to provide enough factual information

supporting the award of sanctions to allow us to review the merits

of any future appeal.

This appeal is therefore, without prejudice,

D I S M I S S E D.