Southern Holdings, Inc. v. Allen , 182 F. App'x 199 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-1824
    SOUTHERN   HOLDINGS,    INCORPORATED;   JAMES
    SPENCER; RODNEY KEITH LAIL; IRENE SANTACROCE;
    RICKY    STEPHENS;    MARGUERITE    STEPHENS;
    DORIS HOLT; NICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON,
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,
    versus
    JAMES ALBERT ALLEN, JR., individually and in
    his official capacity as an officer with the
    Horry County Sheriff’s Department; SIDNEY RICK
    THOMPSON, individually and in his official
    capacity as an officer with the Horry County
    Sheriff’s Department; JEFFREY S. CALDWELL,
    individually and in his official capacity as
    an officer with the Horry County Sheriff’s
    Department; CHARLES MCCLENDON, individually
    and in his official capacity as an officer
    with the Horry County Police Department; JAY
    BRANTLY, individually and in his official
    capacity as an officer with the Horry County
    Police    Department;     ANDY    CHRISTENSEN,
    individually and in his official capacity as
    an officer with the Horry County Police
    Department,
    Defendants - Appellants,
    and
    HORRY COUNTY, South Carolina; HORRY COUNTY
    SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; HORRY COUNTY POLICE
    DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL STEVEN HARTNESS; HAROLD
    STEVEN HARTNESS; ANCIL B. GARVIN, III; DAVID
    SMITH; JOHN DOES,
    Defendants.
    ------------------
    ERNEST H. MORTON, JR.; LINDA WILLIAMSON
    LAWRENCE; NORTH  CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
    REVENUE,
    Movants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (CA-02-1859-4-RBH)
    Submitted:   May 5, 2006                   Decided:   May 24, 2006
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andrew F. Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A.,
    Columbia, South Carolina; Robert E. Lee, James M. Saleeby, Jr.,
    AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, P.A., Florence, South
    Carolina, for Appellants. Mark W. Hardee; James D. Cooper, Jr.,
    COOPER, COFFAS, MOORE & GRAY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; John
    R. Rakowsky, West Columbia, South Carolina; Ronald N. Serota, Las
    Vegas, Nevada, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Horry County Sheriff’s Officers James Albert Allen, Jr.,
    Sidney Rick Thompson, Jeffrey S. Caldwell, and Horry County Police
    Officers Charles McClendon, Jay Brantley, and Andy Christensen
    appeal the district court’s orders denying, in part, their motion
    for summary judgment in Appellees’ 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) civil
    suit.   On appeal, Appellants assert that they are entitled to
    qualified    immunity.          Appellees    argue    that      this    court     lacks
    jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.                    We agree with the
    Appellees.
    Interlocutory orders ordinarily are not appealable.                      An
    exception to this general rule is recognized with respect to orders
    rejecting a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, but only if
    the   denial   of    qualified      immunity    rests      on    a     purely     legal
    determination      that   the    facts    alleged,    if     found     to    be   true,
    demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.                         Johnson v.
    Jones, 
    515 U.S. 304
    , 316-17 (1995); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 
    472 U.S. 511
    , 530 (1985).          However, “to the extent that the appealing
    official seeks to argue the insufficiency of the evidence to raise
    a genuine issue of material fact--for example, that the evidence
    presented    was    insufficient     to     support   a    conclusion        that   the
    official engaged in the particular conduct alleged--we do not
    possess jurisdiction . . . to consider the claim.”                      Winfield v.
    Bass, 
    106 F.3d 525
    , 529-30 (4th Cir. 1997).                  “[W]hile the purely
    - 3 -
    legal question of whether the constitutional right at issue was
    clearly established ‘is always capable of decision at the summary
    judgment stage,’ a genuine question of material fact regarding
    ‘[w]hether the conduct allegedly violative of the right actually
    occurred . . . must be reserved for trial.’”            Willingham v. Crooke,
    
    412 F.3d 553
    , 559 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Pritchett v. Alford, 
    973 F.2d 307
    , 313 (4th Cir. 1992). Here, the district court determined
    that the constitutional right alleged to have been infringed was
    clearly established, but it determined that several genuine issues
    of material fact remained concerning whether the conduct alleged to
    violate that right had actually occurred.
    We therefore dismiss this interlocutory appeal for lack
    of jurisdiction.       We deny Appellees’ motion for leave to file a
    sur-reply as moot.       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.
    DISMISSED
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1824

Citation Numbers: 182 F. App'x 199

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 5/24/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023