Henryk Szwedo v. State of Arkansas ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-1394
    ___________
    Henryk Szwedo,                         *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    *
    v.                              * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    State of Arkansas; Arkansas            * Eastern District of Arkansas
    Department of Health; Mike Foreman; *
    Peter Guresky; Sandra B. Nichols, M.D.,*
    Director,                              *
    *
    Appellants.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 16, 2001
    Filed: April 4, 2002
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and
    NANGLE,1 District Judge.
    ___________
    McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
    Henryk Szwedo brought this action in the district court for the Eastern District
    of Arkansas against the State of Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Health, and
    his former coworkers at the Arkansas Department of Health, alleging that he was
    1
    The Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
    terminated due to national origin discrimination and retaliation, and asserting
    violations of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 and the tort of outrage. The
    defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits and on numerous affirmative
    defenses, including qualified immunity. The district court granted the defendants’
    motion in part and denied it in part. Szwedo v. Arkansas, No. 4:98CV00358 (E.D.
    Ark. Jan. 29, 2001). The district court dismissed the claims of retaliation, the
    Arkansas Civil Rights Act violations, and the tort of outrage, and dismissed the
    former coworkers as defendants. See id. at 9. The district court did not address the
    qualified immunity defense.
    The defendants brought the present appeal asserting jurisdiction based on 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and the collateral order doctrine, which allow a party to immediately
    appeal from the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Upon
    review, however, we conclude that because the district court did not address the
    qualified immunity defense, it did not enter a final appealable order with respect to
    qualified immunity to confer appellate jurisdiction. See Jones v. Coonce, 
    7 F.3d 1359
    , 1365 (8th Cir. 1993) ("When the order appealed from does not decide the issue
    of qualified immunity, this court lacks jurisdiction to decide it."); Moutray v. Butts,
    
    985 F.2d 426
    , 427 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    510 U.S. 817
     (1993) (dismissing appeal
    from denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds for lack of
    jurisdiction because district court's order dealt with summary judgment only as to
    merits and did not discuss qualified immunity). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal
    for lack of jurisdiction.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-1394

Filed Date: 4/4/2002

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015