Case Name: David Lynn WALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. OLSEN, Sergeant; Robert A. Walker, Sergeant; Gilbert Ennis, Lieutenant; John R. McDaniel, Lieutenant; Christopher W. Agapiou, Sergeant; Cornelius E. Smith, Captain; Neal D. Webb, Assistant Warden; Eric L. Fruge, Correctional Officer III; Kevin L. Carlvin, Sergeant; Taliesin R. Stern, Sergeant; Gary L. Johnson; State of Texas, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-17
Citations: 75 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 03-40514
Parties: David Lynn WALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. OLSEN, Sergeant; Robert A. Walker, Sergeant; Gilbert Ennis, Lieutenant; John R. McDaniel, Lieutenant; Christopher W. Agapiou, Sergeant; Cornelius E. Smith, Captain; Neal D. Webb, Assistant Warden; Eric L. Fruge, Correctional Officer III; Kevin L. Carlvin, Sergeant; Taliesin R. Stern, Sergeant; Gary L. Johnson; State of Texas, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
David Lynn WALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. OLSEN, Sergeant; Robert A. Walker, Sergeant; Gilbert Ennis, Lieutenant; John R. McDaniel, Lieutenant; Christopher W. Agapiou, Sergeant; Cornelius E. Smith, Captain; Neal D. Webb, Assistant Warden; Eric L. Fruge, Correctional Officer III; Kevin L. Carlvin, Sergeant; Taliesin R. Stern, Sergeant; Gary L. Johnson; State of Texas, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-40514.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 17, 2003.
David Lynn Wallen, Texas Dept, of Criminal Justice, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David Lynn Wallen, Texas prisoner # 341807, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and consented to have his case determined by a magistrate judge. After conducting a Spears hearing to more fully develop Wallen's claims, the magistrate judge dismissed the complaint with regard to all defendants as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). Specifically, the magistrate judge dismissed Wallen's claims that the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by feeding him non-diabetic food loaves.
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4), the filing of a timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion renders a notice of appeal ineffective until an order is entered disposing of the motion. A motion requesting reconsideration of the judgment is treated as a Rule 59 motion for purposes of Rule 4(a)(4), regardless of the label applied to the motion, if it is made within the 10-day limit for Rule 59 motions. See Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 n. 5 (5th Cir.1994); Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir.1986) (en banc).
Although styled as "objections" to the judgment, Wallen's post-judgment filing challenges the magistrate judge's dismissal of his deliberate-indifference claim and contains a renewed argument with respect to his conditions-of-confinement claim. Accordingly, despite the label affixed by this pro se litigant, the post-judgment filing must be regarded as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion because it was filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment. See Harcon Barge, 784 F.2d at 667.
Accordingly, this case must be remanded, and the record returned to the magistrate judge, so that the magistrate judge may rule upon Wallen's Rule 59(e) as expeditiously as possible, consistent with a just and fair disposition thereof. See Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir.1994).
This court retains jurisdiction over the appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand stated above.
LIMITED REMAND.
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.
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985).