Malich Reed v. John Does , 454 F. App'x 536 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-2888
    ___________
    Malich Reed,                            *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    *
    v.                                * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    John Does, 1-4, FCI Forrest City; T. C. * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Outlaw, Warden, FCI - Forrest City;     *
    Breckon, Captain, FCI - Forrest City; * [UNPUBLISHED]
    M Jemmott, Lt., FCI - Forrest City,     *
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: January 6, 2012
    Filed: January 26, 2012
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal inmate Malich Reed appeals following the district court’s1 adverse
    grant of partial summary judgment and denial of reconsideration in his action under
    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
    1
    The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
    Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
    of Arkansas.
    (1971). While the parties have not raised the issue, we conclude that we lack
    jurisdiction to entertain Reed’s appeal. See Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys.,
    Inc., 
    566 F.3d 771
    , 773 (8th Cir. 2009) (where it appears jurisdiction is lacking,
    appellate courts are obligated to consider sua sponte jurisdictional issues).
    Specifically, there is no final judgment because Reed’s excessive-force claim is still
    pending below, see 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals
    from final decisions); Thomas v. Basham, 
    931 F.2d 521
    , 523 (8th Cir. 1991) (appeal
    was premature when some claims remained pending), and none of the exceptions to
    the final-judgment rule apply, see Huggins, 
    566 F.3d at 775
     (interlocutory appeal
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (b)); Krein v. Norris, 
    250 F.3d 1184
    , 1187 (8th Cir. 2001)
    (collateral-order doctrine); Thomas, 
    931 F.2d at 523
     (Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
    certification). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as premature.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2888

Citation Numbers: 454 F. App'x 536

Judges: Bye, Colloton, Loken, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023