Court Opinion

ID: 23024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:05:19+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:13.582149
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           ___________
                     ___________________________

                             No. 00-10676
                           Summary Calendar
                     Civil Docket #4:98-CV-923-Y
                     ___________________________

NATALIE F. HIMES,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                versus

DALLAS/FORT WORTH MEDICAL CENTER-GRAND PRAIRIE; ET. AL.,

                                                        Defendants,

DALLAS/FORT WORTH MEDICAL CENTER-GRAND PRAIRIE;
BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER OF IRVING; COLUMBIA MEDICAL
CENTER OF ARLINGTON,

                                              Defendants-Appellees,

GROUPONE SERVICES, INC.; ALL SAINTS HEALTH SYSTEM,

                            Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.

________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________0
                         January 26, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:*

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
          Appellant challenges a district court order temporarily

staying her case while the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Texas inquires whether her counsel should be disbarred

from that court because he has been disbarred from the U.S. Supreme

Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.   Because the court’s

stay order is temporary, it is not a final order that can secure

our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.    Further we perceive no

basis for calling this an appealable collateral order.

          APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                2