UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1702
ENGRA M. BELLAMY,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALYSSA CAMPBELL WELLS; BRENT UZDANOVICS,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
DOUG DAVIS, Waynesboro Police Department; WAYNESBORO POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:07-cv-00035-sgw)
Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: July 12, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard H. Milnor, ZUNKA, MILNOR, CARTER & INIGO, LTD.,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellants. Dean E. Lhospital,
SNEATHERN & LHOSPITAL, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Defendants challenge the district court’s denial of
their motion for summary judgment in Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006) action, in which they asserted the affirmative
defense of qualified immunity. Such orders are immediately
appealable, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985),
provided the denial rests on a purely legal determination that
the facts, as viewed by the district court at the summary
judgment stage, establish a violation of a clearly established
right, Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995). If, for
example, the appealing official “seeks to argue the
insufficiency of the evidence to raise a genuine issue of
material fact, this Court does not possess jurisdiction under
[28 U.S.C.] § 1291 [(2006)] to consider the claim.”
Valladares v. Cordero, 552 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2009).
We conclude that the district court did not err when
it denied Defendants qualified immunity. We thus affirm the
district court’s order denying Defendants’ summary judgment
motion, as well as its order finding no basis to alter its
previous ruling upon sua sponte reconsideration. * Bellamy v.
*
Although Defendants ask this court to determine what
remedies are available to Plaintiff based on the conduct about
which he complains, this issue is not “inextricably intertwined”
with the qualified immunity question that is properly before us
on interlocutory appeal. See Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n,
(Continued)
3
Wells, No. 5:07-cv-00035-sgw (W.D. Va. May 15, 2009; June 10,
2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
514 U.S. 35, 51 (1995); Rux v. Republic of Sudan, 461 F.3d 461,
475 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we express no opinion on this
issue.
4