Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Haney v. Kavanagh, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment. The court found that the district court's order denying summary judgment was based on a factual issue of what role the defendant played in the alleged constitutional violation rather than a purely legal determination. As such, the order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-12-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6843

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment. The court found that the district court's order denying summary judgment was based on a factual issue of what role the defendant played in the alleged constitutional violation rather than a purely legal determination. As such, the order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views3 pages

    Haney v. Kavanagh, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from a district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment. The court found that the district court's order denying summary judgment was based on a factual issue of what role the defendant played in the alleged constitutional violation rather than a purely legal determination. As such, the order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, so the appeals court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-6843

    ANTHONY HANEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JACK KAVANAGH,
    Defendant - Appellant,
    and
    CECILE LEAK; DONNA WHIMS; THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION, d/b/a Correctional Food Services
    Management,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-3942-DKC)

    Submitted:

    November 16, 2000

    Decided:

    December 4, 2000

    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy,


    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
    for Appellant. Anthony Haney, Appellee Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jack Kavanagh appeals from the district courts order denying
    his motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West
    Supp. 2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
    because the order is not appealable.

    This court may exercise

    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1994), and


    certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292
    (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
    Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
    An order rejecting a claim of qualified immunity is appealable, provided the denial rests on a purely legal determination
    that the facts establish a violation of clearly established law.
    Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995).

    The order here ap-

    pealed rested its denial of summary judgment on a factual issue


    what role Kavanagh played in the alleged constitutional violationand therefore is neither a final order nor an appealable
    interlocutory or collateral order.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

    We dis-

    pense 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

    You might also like