Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 14, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30412
Summary Calendar
SHELBA J. GREGG, wife of; FRANK D. GREGG,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
JOHN W. LINDER, II; ET AL
Defendants.
JAMES O. M. WOMACK
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a separate appeal taken from the same proceedings in
the district court as described in Appeal No. 03-30276, which we
have decided contemporaneously herewith. During the pre-trial and
discovery stages of this legal malpractice action, one of the
defendants, James O.M. Womack (hereinafter referred to as "Womack")

filed a motion on October 22, 2002, seeking to compel the
plaintiffs to respond to discovery requests. Womack also filed a
motion on December 11, 2002, seeking to recover attorneys fees and
costs against the plaintiffs for their failure to voluntarily
provide discovery responses. Both of these motions were referred
to the magistrate judge for consideration and action pursuant to
the local rules of the district court. The magistrate judge
conducted a hearing on the motion to compel which resulted in a
granting in part and denial in part of such motion; and the motion
for attorneys fees and costs was deferred for a later consideration
when Womack had documented his claim in that regard. Thereafter
all of the defendants including Womack filed motions for summary
judgment on the grounds that the claims of plaintiffs were pre-
empted under Louisiana law and such motion was heard and considered
by the district judge and on March 11, 2003, the district judge
entered an order and reasons granting such motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal on March 17,
2003, designated the record for appeal on that date and paid their
appeal fee on March 18, 2003. On March 28, 2003, the magistrate
judge entered an order determining that Womack's motion to compel
is "granted to the extent Womack seeks to recover attorneys fees
and costs" and further ordered that such attorneys fees and costs
were "granted in the amount of $2,087.50." On April 10, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as to this order of the
magistrate judge and timely made payment of their appellate fee.
2

We dismiss this appeal, No. 03-30412, for lack of appellate
jurisdiction. The district court's docket sheet indicates that no
objection was made by plaintiffs to the entry of the magistrate
judge's order and the district judge has not reviewed and
considered the magistrate judge's order. In the absence of any
approval by the district judge of the entry of the order by the
magistrate judge in this case, such order does not constitute a
final decision of the district court. The only circumstance in
which an order of a magistrate judge may be appealed directly to
this Court is described in 28 U.S.C. � 636 (c)(1) and (3). We find
no consent of the parties as required by these statutes for the
final handling by the magistrate judge of any matter in this case.
In fact, the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was
made by the district judge and it contains no reference of any kind
relating to any claim of attorneys fees by defendant Womack. We
therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
3