Derrance Ramsey v. Danny Brown, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cv-00745-MJP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998549514].. [08-6896]

Derrance Ramsey v. Danny Brown, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 08-6896

Document: 24

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6896

DERRANCE L. RAMSEY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANNY BROWN, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00745-MJP)

Submitted:

October 6, 2010

Decided:

March 21, 2011

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew F. Lindemann, Robert D. Garfield, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 08-6896

Document: 24

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Danny Brown, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his motion for summary judgment on the grounds of

qualified immunity.

Brown takes issue with the district court's

findings and contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because there are no genuine issues of material fact. the respective versions of the facts offered by the However, parties

below were so divergent that judgment as a matter of law is precluded. immunity And "a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified may not appeal a district court's summary

defense,

judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a `genuine' issue of fact for trial." Culosi v. Bullock, 596 F.3d 195, 201 (4th Cir. 2010)

(quoting Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995)). Accordingly, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for lack 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

2