Jessica Cooper v. Anthony Lippa, Jr. , 565 F. App'x 160 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2055
JESSICA L. COOPER,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY A. LIPPA, JR.; MARSHALL M. ELLETT,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
PATRICK H. BLASIOL; FONDA L. BRENNAN; WARNER D. LIPSCOMB,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00712-JRS-DJN; 3:12-cv-00828-JRS)
Submitted: March 31, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellants. David R. Simonsen, Jr., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jessica L. Cooper filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006), inter alia, against Anthony Lippa, Jr., and
Marshall M. Ellett (the Appellants), and others, alleging that
Appellants engaged in a pattern of harassment and malicious
prosecution. Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment
based on qualified immunity, which the district court denied.
They noted a timely appeal.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541(1949). A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on
the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute
the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233
(1945). While interlocutory orders generally are not
appealable, an order denying a defendant’s claim of qualified
immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order
doctrine “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.”
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); Iko v. Shreve,
535 F.3d 225, 234 (4th Cir. 2008). However, a district court’s
determination that a genuine issue of material fact exists that
precludes summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not
immediately appealable. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313-20
2
(1995); Culosi v. Bullock, 596 F.3d 195, 201 (4th Cir. 2010).
Thus, this court has “no jurisdiction over a claim that a
plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to prove that the
plaintiff’s version of the events actually occurred, but [the
court has] jurisdiction over a claim that there was no violation
of clearly established law accepting the facts as the district
court viewed them.” Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525, 530 (4th
Cir. 1997) (en banc).
Because the qualified immunity determination in this
matter ultimately turns on presently unresolved questions of
fact, rather than on an evaluation of the legal significance of
facts found by the district court, we do not possess
jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, we dismiss. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3