Donald Hollabaugh v. Leroy Cartledge
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-01324-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000045884].. [16-6797]
Appeal: 16-6797
Doc: 26
Filed: 03/21/2017
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6797
DONALD L. HOLLABAUGH,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution;
SCOTT LEWIS, Associate Warden of Operations, McCormick
Correctional Institution,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
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;
OFFICER
HARRIS,
McCormick Correctional Institution; OFFICERS JANE DOE,
McCormick Correctional Institution, in their individual and
official
capacities;
OFFICERS
JOHN
DOE,
McCormick
Correctional Institution, in their individual and official
capacities,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (9:14-cv-01324-BHH)
Submitted:
February 28, 2017
Decided:
March 21, 2017
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Appeal: 16-6797
Doc: 26
Filed: 03/21/2017
Pg: 2 of 5
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL &
ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellants.
Cameron
Marshall, CAMERON L. MARSHALL, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina;
V. Brian Bevon, BEVON LAW FIRM LLC, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 16-6797
Doc: 26
Filed: 03/21/2017
Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
In
July
2012,
Donald
L.
Hollabaugh,
a
inmate, was assaulted by two other inmates.
the
underlying
42
U.S.C.
§
1983
(2012)
South
Carolina
Hollabaugh filed
action
alleging
that
prison officials displayed deliberate indifference by failing to
protect him and violated his right to substantive due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment.
judgment;
the
Defendants
defense
accepting
of
the
Cartledge
qualified
Both parties moved for summary
and
Lewis
immunity.
recommendation
of
the
specifically
The
invoked
district
magistrate
judge,
court,
denied
both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the deliberate
indifference
judgment
arguing
claim
based
that
and
on
the
denied
district
motion
for
summary
immunity.
qualified
Defendants’
Defendants
appeal,
court
erred
in
denying
summary
judgment on their qualified immunity defense.
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).
Catlin
Although
v.
United
interlocutory
States,
324
U.S.
orders
generally
229,
233
are
not
appealable, an order denying a defendant’s claim of qualified
3
Appeal: 16-6797
Doc: 26
Filed: 03/21/2017
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
immediately appealable.
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313-20
(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).
In this case, the district court denied qualified immunity
to Defendants at the summary judgment stage finding that there
was
a
genuine
issue
of
fact
as
to
whether
they
had
direct
knowledge, or created a policy or practice exercised by their
subordinates
sufficient
to
create
an
inference,
that
a
substantial risk of harm existed and that they were deliberately
indifferent to that substantial risk of serious harm.
Because
the qualified immunity determination in this matter ultimately
turns on presently unresolved questions of fact rather than on
4
Appeal: 16-6797
Doc: 26
Filed: 03/21/2017
Pg: 5 of 5
an evaluation of the legal significance of undisputed facts, we
do not possess jurisdiction over this appeal.
dismiss the appeal.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
Therefore, we
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
5
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?