Moody v. Baker , 86 F. App'x 721 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 February 4, 2004
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-41334
    Summary Calendar
    DONALD MOODY,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JAIME BAKER, Major; U.P. COLE, Warden;
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
    INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, in her official capacity;
    GARY L. JOHNSON, Executive Director for the
    Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:03-CV-472
    --------------------
    Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Donald Moody, Texas state prisoner # 677242, filed a pro se,
    in forma pauperis (IFP) 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     civil rights complaint
    in the Eastern District of Texas.   Moody appeals the district
    court’s order transferring the case to the Northern District of
    Texas and denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint.
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 03-41334
    -2-
    This court examines the basis of its jurisdiction on its own
    motion if necessary.    Mosley v. Cozby, 
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th
    Cir. 1997).    A transfer order is not a final order that may be
    appealed.    See Stelly v. Employers National Ins. Co., 
    431 F.2d 1251
    , 1253 (5th Cir. 1970).    Additionally, the denial of Moody’s
    motion for leave to amend also is not a final, appealable order.
    See Smith v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 
    569 F.2d 325
    , 326 (5th Cir.
    1978); McClune v. Shamah, 
    593 F.2d 482
    , 486 (3rd Cir. 1979).
    This appeal is therefore DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
    Moody has also filed a document entitled “motion supplement
    re-submitted,” which we construe as a motion for leave to file
    supplemental brief.    This pleading is incomprehensible, and Moody
    offers no clear explanation of why it was filed or its intended
    purpose.    Moody’s motion is therefore DENIED.
    APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-41334

Citation Numbers: 86 F. App'x 721

Judges: Benavides, Dennis, Emilio, Garza, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/4/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2023