James Whitlock, III v. Jared Greenlee, No. 14-1273 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1273 JAMES SMITH WHITLOCK, III, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JARED GREENLEE, in his individual capacity,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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) there action was no against Jared probable cause Greenlee, to alleging support that, either a because search of Whitlock s vehicle or his subsequent arrest, both the search and the arrest violated Whitlock s Fourth Amendment Whitlock also raised related state law claims. motion for summary judgment based on rights. Greenlee filed a 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. This court may Greenlee noted a timely appeal. 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 immediately appealable. qualified immunity grounds is not 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 appeal for want of jurisdiction. of fact, we dismiss the 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
