(5th Cir.1999) (in affirming summary judgment, we noted that the plaintiff "refused to take his seizure medication on 28 occasions” and had "no complaints”). 26 . See Bazan v. Hidalgo County, 246 F.3d 481, 490 (5th. Cir.2001) ("We have jurisdiction for this interlocutory appeal if it challenges the materiality of factual issues, but lack jurisdiction if it challenges the district court's genuineness ruling — that genuine issues exist concerning material facts”.) (emphasis in original); see also Reyes v. City of Richmond, 287 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir.2002) (explaining a "challenge [to] the genuineness, rather than the materiality, of the factual disputes ... is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal”); see also Lemoine v. New Horizons Ranch & Center, Inc., 174 F.3d 629, 634 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 27 . "The plaintiff bears the burden of
holding that requests for admissions that seek to render undisputed the disputed material facts of a case are per se impermissible holding that dismissal on res judicata grounds is proper under rule 12b6 unless a disputed issue of material fact exists holding that jurisdiction exists for determining if disputed facts are material holding that contract debts even if disputed are considered liquidated and tort claims are not holding that trial courts resolution of disputed facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by substantial evidence