Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01186/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald Bloom
Appellee
James W. Buie

J. D. Costner

Jane Doe

John Doe

Doe Bond Company

William J. Farley

William Galloway

Gaston County
Appellee
Gaston County Police Department

Christopher Haskett

Matthew Hensley

William E. Howell

Christopher McAulay

Michael Mead
Appellant
Renee Mullis

North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations

Clyde Putnam

Christopher Reynolds

Christie L. Rhoney

William Sampson
Appellee
Calvin Shaw
Appellee
J. K. Shaw

Mark Stewart

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1186

MICHAEL MEAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CALVIN SHAW, Individually and in his official capacity as Captain of the Gaston 

County Police Department; REGINALD BLOOM, Individually and in his official 

capacity as a Detective for the Gaston County Police Department; WILLIAM 

SAMPSON, Individually and in his official capacity as a Detective for the Gaston 

County Police Department; GASTON COUNTY,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

GASTON COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; NORTH CAROLINA STATE 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS; WILLIAM J. FARLEY, Individually and in his 

capacity as the Chief of Police for the Gaston County Police Department; 

JAMES W. BUIE, Individually and in his capacity as the Assistant Chief of Police 

for the Gaston County Police Department; CHRISTOPHER REYNOLDS, 

Individually and in his capacity as a Sergeant for the Gaston County Police 

Department; CHRISTIE L. RHONEY, Individually and in her capacity as a 

Sergeant for the Gaston County Police Department; CHRISTOPHER HASKETT, 

Individually and in his capacity as a Detective for the Gaston County Police 

Department; WILLIAM E. HOWELL, Individually and in his capacity as a 

Detective for the Gaston County Police Department; CHRISTOPHER MCAULAY, 

Individually and in his capacity as a Detective for the Gaston County Police 

Department; MATTHEW HENSLEY, Individually and in his capacity as a 

Detective for the Gaston County Police Department; J. K. SHAW, Individually and 

in his capacity as a Detective for the Gaston County Police Department; WILLIAM 

GALLOWAY, Individually and in his capacity as a Detective for the Gaston County 

Police Department; CLYDE PUTNAM, Individually and in his capacity as an 

Employee for the Gaston County Police Department; J. D. COSTNER, Individually 

Appeal: 16-1186 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/28/2017 Pg: 1 of 4
2

and as an Officer for the Gaston County Police Department; MARK STEWART, 

Individually and in his capacity as an Officer for the Gaston County Police 

Department; RENEE MULLIS, Individually and in her Capacity as a Investigator 

Agent for the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations; JOHN DOE, 

Individually and in his capacity as employee of Gaston County Police Department 

and or the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations; JANE DOE, Individually 

and in her capacity as employee of the Gaston County Police Department and or the 

North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations; DOE BOND COMPANY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00132-GCM)

Submitted: March 17, 2017 Decided: March 28, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

S. Luke Largess, Jacob H. Sussman, TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Martha Raymond Thompson, Ryan L. Bostic, STOTT, 

HOLLOWELL, PALMER & WINDHAM, LLP, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1186 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/28/2017 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Michael Mead appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment on several of Mead’s claims. Although “[t]he parties . . . have not 

questioned our jurisdiction . . . , we have an independent obligation to verify the existence 

of appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it 

has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Regardless of the label given a district court decision, if it appears from the record that 

the district court has not adjudicated all of the issues in a case, then there is no final order.” 

Id. 

In his complaint, Mead raised several state law claims, some of which the district 

court dismissed early in the litigation. Mead’s claims for malicious prosecution and 

trespass by public officers against three Defendants in both their official and individual 

capacities proceeded to summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment 

to Defendants after concluding that governmental immunity barred the state law malicious 

prosecution and trespass claims. However, the district court acknowledged that 

governmental immunity only bars suit against municipal employees sued in their official 

capacity. The court did not address the claims for trespass and malicious prosecution 

against Defendants in their individual capacities. Because the district court did not rule on 

those claims, it “never issued a final decision” on Mead’s remaining state law claims. Id.

at 699. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

Appeal: 16-1186 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/28/2017 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the district court for 

consideration of Mead’s remaining claims. We express no opinion on the ultimate 

disposition of those claims. We also express no opinion regarding the district court’s 

dismissal of Mead’s Fourth Amendment claims. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND

REMANDED

Appeal: 16-1186 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/28/2017 Pg: 4 of 4