Christy Powell, Charles Powell, and Andy Massingill, all named defendants in a civil rights suit filed by David Gene Morris, Texas prisoner #285845, appeal the district court’s denial of their summary judgment motions based upon qualified immunity. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4), the filing of a timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion renders a notice of appeal ineffective until an order is entered disposing of the motion. A motion requesting reconsideration of a judgment is treated as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for purposes of Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4), regardless of the label applied to the motion, if it is made within the 10-day limit for Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. See Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1994); Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc).

Within 10 days of the district court’s denial of their summary judgment motions, the Powells and Massingill filed a motion for reconsideration. Given the timing of the motion, this court must treat it as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and, because the district court has not yet ruled on the motion, the notice of the appeal in this case is not yet effective. Accordingly, this case must be remanded, and the record returned to the district court, so that the district court may rule upon the Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. See Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994).

LIMITED REMAND.