PER CURIAM:
This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Because there is a fact dispute about negligence or intent, if any, to be proven, there is no collateral order that warrants interlocutory jurisdiction. See Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795 (5th Cir.1996). Furthermore, the fingei’print cards are tangible property, leaving no legal issue presented in view of the order appealed, where the court denied judgment because there is a fact issue whether negligent use of the fingerprint card caused Rhodes’s injury. See Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.2004).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.