Jessica Cooper v. Anthony Lippa, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00712-JRS-DJN,3:12-cv-00828-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999330249].. [13-2055]

Appeal: 13-2055

Doc: 24

Filed: 04/04/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2055

JESSICA L. COOPER,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY A. LIPPA, JR.; MARSHALL M. ELLETT,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
PATRICK H. BLASIOL; FONDA L. BRENNAN; WARNER D. LIPSCOMB,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00712-JRS-DJN; 3:12-cv-00828-JRS)

Submitted:

March 31, 2014

Decided:

April 4, 2014

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellants.
David R. Simonsen, Jr., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2055

Doc: 24

Filed: 04/04/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jessica L. Cooper filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983

(2006),

inter

alia,

against

Anthony

Lippa,

Jr.,

and

Marshall M. Ellett (the Appellants), and others, alleging that
Appellants

engaged

prosecution.

in

a

pattern

of

harassment

and

malicious

Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment

based on qualified immunity, which the district court denied.
They noted a timely appeal.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders.
54(b);
(1949).

Cohen

v.

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.

Beneficial

Indus.

Loan

Corp.,

337

U.S.

541

A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on

the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute
the

judgment.”

(1945).

While

Catlin

v.

United

interlocutory

States,

orders

324

U.S.

generally

229,

233

are

not

appealable, an order denying a defendant’s 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);
535 F.3d 225, 234 (4th Cir. 2008).

Iko v. Shreve,

However, a district court’s

determination that a genuine issue of material fact exists that
precludes summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not
immediately appealable.

Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313-20
2

Appeal: 13-2055

Doc: 24

Filed: 04/04/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

(1995); Culosi v. Bullock, 596 F.3d 195, 201 (4th Cir. 2010).
Thus,

this

court

has

“no

jurisdiction

over

a

claim

that

a

plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to prove that the
plaintiff’s version of the events actually occurred, but [the
court has] jurisdiction over a claim that there was no violation
of clearly established law accepting the facts as the district
court viewed them.”

Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525, 530 (4th

Cir. 1997) (en banc).
Because the qualified immunity determination in this
matter

ultimately

turns

on

presently

unresolved

questions

of

fact, rather than on an evaluation of the legal significance of
facts

found

jurisdiction
dispense

by
over

with

contentions

the

are

district

this

oral

court,

argument

adequately

do

Therefore,

appeal.

we

we

because

presented

in

the
the

not

possess

dismiss.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3