UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6574
MICHAEL R. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDDIE L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; JANE DOE
CLINCKSCALES; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional
Director,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
GIVENS, Records Office Manager; HOUSTON
SHIFLETT, Unit Manager; AVON QUIERO; JANE DOE
STEM,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-02-219-2)
Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Michael R. Johnson, Appellee
Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Appellants have filed an appeal of the district court’s
order denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified
immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. It is well
established that a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified
immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), notwithstanding the absence of a final
judgment. Renn v. Garrison, 100 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)). We review
the district court’s denial of a defense of qualified immunity de
novo. Hodge v. Jones, 31 F.3d 157, 163 (4th Cir. 1994).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Johnson v. Pearson, No. CA-02-219-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 2,
2004). We deny Johnson’s motions for sanctions and to dismiss the
appeal for failure to prosecute. We express no view as to whether
Johnson will ultimately be able to establish the objective and
subjective elements of his ETS claim. 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
- 3 -