Case Name: Michael L. MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian W. TIDWELL, F.W.P.D. Officer, K-9 Officer; Officer Justin L. Stroud, F.W.P.D, West Field Operations; Offi- . cer John T. Davis, F.W.P.D., West Field Operations; James S. Fields, F.W.P.D., West Field Operations; Officer Jason L. Gipson; Nathan S. Lehman, ID# 3727, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-03
Citations: 615 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 14-11250
Parties: Michael L. MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian W. TIDWELL, F.W.P.D. Officer, K-9 Officer; Officer Justin L. Stroud, F.W.P.D, West Field Operations; Offi- . cer John T. Davis, F.W.P.D., West Field Operations; James S. Fields, F.W.P.D., West Field Operations; Officer Jason L. Gipson; Nathan S. Lehman, ID# 3727, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 189–190

Head Matter:
Michael L. MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian W. TIDWELL, F.W.P.D. Officer, K-9 Officer; Officer Justin L. Stroud, F.W.P.D, West Field Operations; Offi- . cer John T. Davis, F.W.P.D., West Field Operations; James S. Fields, F.W.P.D., West Field Operations; Officer Jason L. Gipson; Nathan S. Lehman, ID# 3727, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 14-11250.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 3, 2015.
Lyndon Frank Bittle, Joshua Dudley Kipp, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blu-menthal, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kenneth E. East, Esq., Foster & East, North Richland Hills, TX, Dee Lee Thomas, Jr., Law Office of D. Lee Thomas, Luis Alfredo Galindo, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In our earlier opinion, we cited Fifth Circuit Rule 47.6 and affirmed the district court's judgment. We withdraw that opinion and substitute the following:
Defendants-Appellants Adrian Tidwell, John Davis, James Fields, Jason Gipson, Justin Stroud, and Nathan Lehman appeal the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment. After hearing oral arguments and considering the record and the briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying summary judgment and we therefore DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.