IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60642 Summary Calendar _________________

CARL ALEXANDER; PATRICIA ALEXANDER, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus BOLIVAR COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; H.M. “MACK” GRIMMETT, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Bolivar County, Mississippi; RICKY HAYWOOD, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Jailor; ELMORE SELLERS, Individually and in his Official capacity as Jail Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:98-CV-59-B-B _____________________________________ June 21, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* The plaintiffs appeal the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising from injuries suffered by Carl Alexander (“Alexander”) while in pretrial detention at the Bolivar County Jail. Because the plaintiffs failed to timely object to the magistrate judge’s order striking Victor Carmody’s affidavit and expert witness designation, this court lacks jurisdiction to review that order. See Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989).

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Since the plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants are liable for their acts and omissions in failing to protect Alexander and in failing to provide him with adequate medical care and that Bolivar County is liable for the individual defendants’ acts and omissions due to its policies, this is an episodic act or omission case. See Flores v. County of Hardeman, Texas, 124 F.3d 736, 738 (5th Cir. 1997); Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 53-54 (5th Cir. 1997). The plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue o f material fact regarding whether any of the individual defendants had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk o f serious harm to Alexander and acted with subjective deliberate indifference. See Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 526-29 (5th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.