Case Name: Paul REX; Tom Conklin, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ronnie CHUMLEY, et al., Defendants, Ronnie Chumley; Patsy Williams, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-01
Citations: 169 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: No. 04-21027
Parties: Paul REX; Tom Conklin, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ronnie CHUMLEY, et al., Defendants, Ronnie Chumley; Patsy Williams, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
Paul REX; Tom Conklin, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ronnie CHUMLEY, et al., Defendants, Ronnie Chumley; Patsy Williams, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 04-21027.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided March 1, 2006.
Sheila R. Haley, Cordell & Haley, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
William S. Helfand, Kevin D. Jewell, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The initial question in this appeal is whether we have jurisdiction over the District Court's denial of the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have appellate jurisdiction only if that ruling denied the Defendants' claim for qualified immunity on some legal ground. See Hatfield v. Scott, 306 F.3d 223, 225 (5th Cir.2002). On the basis of the pleadings and record before us, we are unable to make that determination. We therefore dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
APPEAL 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.