                                                                                  PUBLISH

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                              FILED
                          FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                         ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                                             MAR 07 2000
                         -------------------------------------------
                                                                          THOMAS K. KAHN
                                       No. 98-9178                             CLERK
                        --------------------------------------------

                          D. C. Docket No. 97-00431-1-JEC


FITZGERALD COLUMBUS HINSON,
                                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

     versus

RODERICK E. EDMOND, M.D.,
                                                          Defendant-Appellant.


               ----------------------------------------------------------------
                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Georgia
               ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                     (March 7, 2000)


Before EDMONDSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and OWENS*, Senior District
Judge.


____________

*    Honorable Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of
     Georgia, sitting by designation.
B Y T H E C O U R T:

        Our opinion in Fitzgerald Columbus Hinson v. Roderick E. Edmond, No.

98-9178, reported at 192 F.3d 1342 is revised as follows:

        1. The second sentence of the first paragraph of the opinion is amended to

read:

        Because we conclude that the defendant, due to his status as a privately
        employed prison physician, is ineligible to advance the defense of qualified
        immunity, we AFFIRM the district court’s order and REMAND for further
        proceedings.


        2. The final five paragraphs of the opinion, those appearing at pages 1348-

49, are withdrawn. We lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits because they are

not “inextricably interwoven” with our decision on qualified immunity. See

generally Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 1212 (1995); Foy

v. Schantz, Schatzman & Aaronson, P.A., 108 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir. 1997);

Harris v. Board of Educ., 105 F.3d 591, 594 (11th Cir. 1997). In the place of the

stricken paragraphs, we substitute this paragraph:

        We affirm the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary
        judgment: the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply. We remand the
        case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.




                                           2
