Donald Hollabaugh v. Leroy Cartledge
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-01324-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-6797]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DONALD L. HOLLABAUGH,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution;
SCOTT LEWIS, Associate Warden of Operations, McCormick
Defendants - Appellants,
WILLIAM BYERS, Agency Director, South Carolina Department of
Corrections; ROBERT E. WARD, Deputy Director of Operations,
South Carolina Department of Corrections; LIEUTENANT AIKEN,
McCormick Correctional Institution; OFFICERS JANE DOE,
McCormick Correctional Institution, in their individual and
Correctional Institution, in their individual and official
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
February 28, 2017
March 21, 2017
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Pg: 2 of 5
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL &
ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellants.
Marshall, CAMERON L. MARSHALL, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina;
V. Brian Bevon, BEVON LAW FIRM LLC, Charleston, South Carolina,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 5
inmate, was assaulted by two other inmates.
prison officials displayed deliberate indifference by failing to
protect him and violated his right to substantive due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Both parties moved for summary
both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the deliberate
judgment on their qualified immunity defense.
decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders.
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on
the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute
appealable, an order denying a defendant’s claim of qualified
Pg: 4 of 5
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 that
precludes summary judgment on 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).
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).
In this case, the district court denied qualified immunity
to Defendants at the summary judgment stage finding that there
knowledge, or created a policy or practice exercised by their
substantial risk of harm existed and that they were deliberately
indifferent to that substantial risk of serious harm.
the qualified immunity determination in this matter ultimately
turns on presently unresolved questions of fact rather than on
Pg: 5 of 5
an evaluation of the legal significance of undisputed facts, we
do not possess jurisdiction over this appeal.
dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?