MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff Tom Tuduj is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, who commenced this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 7). Tuduj alleged Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his severe dental problems, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights (Id.). The Court appointed Tuduj counsel, but Tuduj eventually lost confidence in his attorney and filed a motion for leave to represent himself (Doc. 87). United States Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison denied Tuduj's motion on March 19, 2019, noting that this case presents complicated issues and requires recruited counsel (Doc. 88). On March 20, 2019, the undersigned District Judge granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants (Doc. 89), and this case was closed (Doc. 90).

Five days later, Tuduj filed an appeal of Judge Sison's Order denying his motion for leave to represent himself (Doc. 92). That same day, Tuduj filed a motion to reconsider the Order that granted Defendants summary judgment (Doc. 93). On April 1, 2019, Tuduj filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 94). The Court construes the motion to reconsider (Doc. 93) and the motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 94) together, as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2006) (A motion to alter a judgment that is filed within 28 days after entry of judgment "is deemed filed under Rule 59(e) even if, as in this case, the motion is not labeled a Rule 59(e) motion and . . . does not say `alter or amend' . . . but instead uses a synonym, such as `vacate' or `reconsider.'"). On April 15, 2019, before the Court could rule on the motions, Tuduj filed a notice of appeal in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 96). On May 14, 2019, Tuduj filed a motion to strike the motions to alter or amend the judgment, in light of his appeal to the Seventh Circuit (Doc. 104).

Tuduj's filing of the notice of appeal raises jurisdictional concerns that must be resolved before the Court can address the merits of the pending motions. Generally, an appeal divests the District Court of jurisdiction over the case. See United States v. Woodard, 744 F.3d 488, 495 (7th Cir. 2014) ("There is a general rule that an appeal suspends the power of the court below to proceed further in the cause."). But the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide for exceptions to this rule when a party prematurely files a notice of appeal after the District Court has entered judgment, but before the Court has acted on a timely post-judgment motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b), 52(b), 54, 59, or 60. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). In this event, the notice of appeal is effectively suspended until the District Court disposes of the motion. See Id.

Here, Tuduj's appeal of Judge Sison's Order (Doc. 92) does not fall under any of the motions covered by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A). Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address its merits, and it is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. But the notice of appeal does not divest the Court of jurisdiction to consider the motions to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). See Katerinos v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 368 F.3d 733, 737 (7th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the motion to strike (Doc. 104) is GRANTED, and the motions to alter or amend the judgment (Docs. 93 & 94) are STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.