Case Name: Stephen R. LINZAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William J. HENDERSON; U.S. Postal Service, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-28
Citations: 103 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 04-30161
Parties: Stephen R. LINZAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William J. HENDERSON; U.S. Postal Service, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
Stephen R. LINZAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William J. HENDERSON; U.S. Postal Service, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 04-30161.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided July 28, 2004.
Dawn N Guillot, Parish Attorney’s Office for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John A Broadwell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PICKERING Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen R.' Linzay brought suit against defendant-appellees alleging, inter alia, claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000-5 et seq., and the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing Linzay's Title VII claims on their merits. On January 20, 2004, the district court conditionally dismissed Linzay's FMLA claims and closed the case, subject to reopening the case if the parties did not consummate a settlement of those FMLA claims. Linzay appeals solely the district court's summary judgment of his Title VII claims.
On April 9, 2004, the district court reopened this case upon information that the parties had not settled their FMLA claims. The case is currently open and being litigated in the district court. Because this case is still being actively litigated in the district court, the district court has not yet issued a "final decision," and we must dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Way v. Reliance Ins. Co., 815 F.2d 1033, 1033-34 (5th Cir.1987).
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.