Cilman v. Reeves

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1433
ALAN J. CILMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
M. A. REEVES, Police Officer, Vienna Police
Department,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
THE TOWN OF VIENNA, VIRGINIA; DOES 1-10,
employees of the Vienna Police Department,
Defendants.
No. 07-1450
ALAN J. CILMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
M. A. REEVES, Police Officer, Vienna Police
Department,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
THE TOWN OF VIENNA, VIRGINIA; DOES 1-10,
employees of the Vienna Police Department,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:06-cv-01099-GBL)
Submitted: February 5, 2008 Decided: February 21, 2008
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
No. 07-1433 affirmed; No. 07-1450 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Julia Bougie Judkins, TRICHILO, BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH &
JUDKINS, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Alan J.
Cilman, Fairfax, Virginia, Appellee/Cross-Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In No. 07-1433, Sergeant M. A. Reeves appeals from the
district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment
based on qualified immunity in the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action
brought against him by Alan J. Cilman. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Cilman v. Reeves, No. 1:06-
cv-01099-GBL (E.D. Va. June 21, 2007).
In No. 07-1450, Cilman noted a cross-appeal, seeking to
appeal the district court’s order to the extent that it granted
summary judgment in favor of the Town of Vienna on his supervisory
liability claims. 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).
The order Cilman seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Swint v.
Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 45-51 (1995); Bailey v.
Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 734, 738 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we
dismiss appeal No. 07-1450 for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
No. 07-1433 AFFIRMED
No. 07-1450 DISMISSED
- 4 -