IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41212 Summary Calendar

JESSE WARE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ORLANDO PEREZ, Warden; MARK DIAZ, Warden; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Major; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Captain; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Lieutenant; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Sergeant; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Correctional Officer III; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Correctional Officer III; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Correctional Officer III; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Correctional Officer III; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Correctional Officer III; WILLIAM BOOTH, Warden; SIMPSON, DR.; VERNON PITTMAN; CRYSTAL MCCOY; R. MEY, DR.; K. BLACKWELL, Nurse,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CV-16 - - - - - - - - - - April 3, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesse Ware, Texas prisoner #395442, appeals from the jury

verdict finding that his civil-rights lawsuit filed pursuant to

was barred by limitations. He argues that: (1) his

lawsuit was erroneously transferred from the Eastern District of

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 99-41212 -2-

Texas to the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division;

(2) the magistrate judge’s sua sponte order of a jury trial to

determine the limitations issue was an abuse of discretion; and (3)

the magistrate judge failed to apply the correct statute of

limitations.

The magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by

transferring the lawsuit to the Southern District, Corpus Christi

Division, where the relevant incidents occurred and all the

defendants were located. See Casarez v. Burlington Northern/Santa

Fe Co.,

(5th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s

order of a jury trial to determine the limitations issue was not an

abuse of discretion because it did not conflict with the district

court’s previous decision denying three of the defendants’ motions

to dismiss or for summary judgment based on limitations. Although

the district court denied such motions because it held that the

defendants had not produced sufficient evidence that Ware’s

complaint had been untimely, such denial did not determine that

Ware’s complaint was timely. Furthermore, the magistrate judge

properly applied to Ware’s claims the Texas statute of limitations

utilized for medical injury claims. See Harris v. Hegmann,

(5th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment of dismissal is

AFFIRMED. Ware’s motion for leave to submit documentary evidence

is DENIED.