Tyrone Perry v. Correct Health Medical Service, et ( 2018 )

Case: 17-30446 Document: 00514410526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-30446
FILED
April 2, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
TYRONE LEWIS PERRY, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CORRECT HEALTH MEDICAL SERVICES; JEFFERSON PARISH
SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:17-CV-556
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Tyrone Lewis Perry, Louisiana prisoner # 295698, moves this court to
proceed in forma paupers (IFP) on appeal from the magistrate judge’s orders
denying his motions to proceed IFP in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and for
reconsideration. The magistrate judge determined that Perry had not
submitted the required certified account statement, which he has now provided
in his motion to proceed IFP on appeal.
*Pursuant to , and Perry 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth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.
Case: 17-30446 Document: 00514410526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2018
No. 17-30446
We have jurisdiction to review only final decisions and specific types of
interlocutory orders that are covered by the collateral order doctrine. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 78 F.3d
920, 925-26 (5th Cir. 1996). Because the parties did not consent to proceed
before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the orders issued
by the magistrate judge are not directly appealable to this court. See
Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624-25 (5th Cir. 2004). Instead, Perry must
first object or otherwise dispute the rulings before the district court. See id. at
624. Moreover, nothing prevents Perry from moving again to proceed IFP in
the district court based on a current certified account statement. We lack
jurisdiction to consider the magistrate judge’s decisions to deny Perry’s motion
to proceed IFP and his motion for reconsideration. Thus, Perry’s motion to
proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
2