Summary Calendar BENJAMIN LCRAVEN, On behalf of himself, individually v. Canal Barge Company, Inc

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 31, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30849
Summary Calendar
BENJAMIN L CRAVEN, On behalf of himself, individually,
and on behalf of all those similarly situated
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
CANAL BARGE COMPANY, INC
Defendant - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 03-CV-536
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Benjamin Craven (Craven) sued Canal Barge Co. (Canal)
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 201, et seq. (FLSA) and Louisiana law. Canal moved for partial
summary judgment, and the district court dismissed the state-law
claims but not the FLSA claims, which were not the subject of
Canal’s motion.

-- 1 of 2 --

No.03-30849
-2-
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua
sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
Cir. 1987). The district court’s grant of partial summary
judgment did not dispose of all of the claims and was therefore
not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Briargrove
Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., 170 F.3d 536,
538-39 (5th Cir. 1999); Askenase v. LivingWell, Inc., 981 F.2d
807, 809-10 (5th Cir. 1993). In addition, there is no
certification of finality or appealability under FED. R. CIV.
P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Neither the order granting
partial summary judgment nor the district court’s order closing
the case for statistical purposes shows an “unmistakable intent”
to enter an appealable partial judgment under FED. R. CIV.
P. 54(b). See Briargrove, 170 F.3d at 539. Further, FED. R. CIV.
P. 23(f) does not apply.
Because there is no appealable judgment, we lack appellate
jurisdiction, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --