UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1273
JAMES SMITH WHITLOCK, III,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JARED GREENLEE, in his individual capacity,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00958-CCE-JLW)
Submitted: August 25, 2014 Decided: September 11, 2014
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., Kari Russwurm Johnson, CRANFILL, SUMNER &
HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. James
Smith Whitlock, III, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Smith Whitlock, III, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) action against Jared Greenlee, alleging that, because
there was no probable cause to support either a search of
Whitlock’s vehicle or his subsequent arrest, both the search and
the arrest violated Whitlock’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Whitlock also raised related state law claims. Greenlee filed a
motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A
magistrate judge recommended granting the motion with respect to
the state law claims but denying it with respect to the Fourth
Amendment claims. Over Greenlee’s objections, the district
court adopted the report, denying the summary judgment motion in
part and granting it in part. Greenlee noted a timely appeal.
This court may exercise jurisdiction over final
decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545
(1949). While interlocutory orders generally are not
appealable, an order denying a claim of qualified immunity is
immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine “to
the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell v.
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225,
234 (4th Cir. 2008). However, a district court’s determination
that a genuine issue of material fact exists so as to preclude
2
summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not
immediately appealable. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313-20
(1995); Culosi v. Bullock, 596 F.3d 195, 201 (4th Cir. 2010).
Because the qualified immunity determination in this
case turns on unresolved questions of fact, we dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction. 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
3