Othman v. Chertoff

PER CURIAM: * Nedal Othman appeals the district court’s December 13, 2007, order denying his requests for entry of final judgment and attorney’s fees. The district court did not enter a separate document pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, nor is it otherwise clear that the district court’s order is a final judgment in this matter. While neither party raises this issue, we have an obligation to satisfy ourselves as to our own jurisdiction. Energy Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Shreveport, 397 F.3d 297, 301 n. 2 (5th Cir.2005). We conclude that we should order a limited remand to allow the district court to indicate whether the order of December 13, 2007, was intended to be the final judgment in this case, and if not, for the court to determine whether or not it now will enter a final judgment. IT IS ORDERED that a limited remand occur for the district court to enter an order or judgment as indicated. Proceedings on this appeal are stayed pending the receipt of the district court’s order or other response. REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this order. Footnotes [*] Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.