Haney v. Kavanagh ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6843
ANTHONY HANEY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JACK KAVANAGH,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
CECILE LEAK; DONNA WHIMS; THE WACKENHUT COR-
PORATION, d/b/a Correctional Food Services
Management,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
98-3942-DKC)
Submitted: November 16, 2000 Decided: December 4, 2000
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. Anthony Haney, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Jack Kavanagh appeals from the district court’s order denying
his motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West
Supp. 2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
An order rejecting a claim of qualified immunity is appeal-
able, provided the denial rests on a “purely legal” determination
that the facts establish a violation of “clearly established law.”
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995). The order here ap-
pealed rested its denial of summary judgment on a factual issue
—what role Kavanagh played in the alleged constitutional viola-
tion—and therefore is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dis-
pense 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.
DISMISSED
3