Walker v. Richards, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50880
Summary Calendar
ROBERT WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ED RICHARDS; JOHN DOE;
STEPHEN BENOLD, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-99-CV-9417-SS
---------------------
March 6, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Walker has filed a “Motion for Emergency Stay Pending
Judgment and Extraordinary Action.” Walker asks this court to
“take ‘extraordinary action’” and “take supervisory
responsibility for [his] cause of action.” There is no authority

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-50880
- 2 -
for the court to assume “supervisory responsibility” over
Walker’s pending complaint in the district court. Accordingly,
his request for “emergency relief” is DENIED.
The appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, or
in the alternative, a response to Walker’s appellate brief. They
argue that Walker has inappropriately filed an appeal from an
interlocutory order and, thus, that the appeal should be
dismissed.
There is no final judgment or certification by the district
court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The interlocutory order from which Walker appeals does not meet
one of the exceptions listed in § 1292(a) or resolve an issue
that is completely separate from the merits of the action under
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). This
court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to review any claims raised
by this appeal. Accordingly, the appellees’ motion to dismiss is
GRANTED, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.

-- 2 of 2 --