Case Name: Albert Ronnie BURRELL; Michael Ray Graham, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Tommy ADKINS; et al., Defendants, Tommy Adkins; Dan J. Grady III; Robert Levy, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-17
Citations: 104 F. App'x 420
Docket Number: No. 03-31045
Parties: Albert Ronnie BURRELL; Michael Ray Graham, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Tommy ADKINS; et al., Defendants, Tommy Adkins; Dan J. Grady III; Robert Levy, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 420–421

Head Matter:
Albert Ronnie BURRELL; Michael Ray Graham, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Tommy ADKINS; et al., Defendants, Tommy Adkins; Dan J. Grady III; Robert Levy, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 03-31045.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
Henry Clay Walker, IV, Walker, Tooke & Lyons, Shreveport, LA, Nicholas Joseph Trentieosta, New Orleans, LA, Charles Joseph Lloyd, Matthew P. Lewis, Kristin Loedrup Choi, Livgard & Rabuse, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
David Michael Hufft, Pivach & Pivach, Belle Chasse, LA, Ralph R Alexis, III, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The appellants ask this court to overturn a discovery order by the magistrate judge, which was affirmed by the district court, and which allowed discovery to proceed in the underlying case while the appellants' interlocutory appeal in Burrell v. Adkins, 94 Fed.Appx. 232, was pending. Vacating the challenged discovery order would allow a prior stay of discovery by the district court to remain in effect, pending a final decision by this court in No. 03-30487. The appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Because we have issued a final decision in Burrell v. Adkins, 94 Fed.Appx. 232 (5th Cir.2004), we DISMISS this appeal as MOOT. See City of Erie v. Pap's AM., 529 U.S. 277, 287, 120 S.Ct. 1382, 146 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000); United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395-96, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980). The appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is, for this reason, GRANTED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.
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.