Grimm v. Robinson , 220 F. App'x 202 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1505
ANTHONY B. GRIMM,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROGER ROBINSON, Individually and as a Police
Officer of the Town of Vinton, Virginia,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
TOWN OF VINTON, VIRGINIA, a Municipal
Corporation; HERB COOLEY, Individually and as
Chief of Police of the Town of Vinton,
Virginia,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:05-cv-00068-JCT)
Submitted: January 26, 2007 Decided: March 1, 2007
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Jim H. Guynn, Jr., GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellant. Neil E. McNally, KEY, TATEL & MCNALLY, P.C.,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Officer Roger Robinson seeks to appeal the district
court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment. Anthony Grimm
filed a complaint against Robinson and others pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2000), alleging that Robinson used excessive force while
taking Grimm into custody, in violation of Grimm’s Fourth Amendment
rights. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits
and also asserted that Robinson was entitled to qualified immunity.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all the
Defendants except for Robinson. After thoroughly reviewing the
record, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). This
court does not have jurisdiction “over a claim that a plaintiff has
not presented enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff’s version
of events actually occurred, but [this 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). We find that
to the extent Robinson is arguing that he should prevail, even if
the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Grimm, this
court has jurisdiction, and we affirm the order of the district
- 3 -
court. To the extent Robinson is not arguing a point of law, and
instead is claiming that there is no genuine issue of material
fact, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. See Johnson v.
Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995) (“[T]he District Court’s
determination that the summary judgment record . . . raised a
genuine issue of fact . . . was not a ‘final decision’ within the
meaning of [28 U.S.C. § 1291].”); see also Buonocore v. Harris, 65
F.3d 347, 360-61 (4th Cir. 1995).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 4 -