UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1470

PAUL TARASHUK, Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul David Tarashuk 

Deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLIFFORD A. DOROSKI,

 Defendant - Appellant,

and

JAMIE D. GIVENS; ORANGEBURG COUNTY; ORANGEBURG COUNTY 

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; DANNY RIVERS; ORANGEBURG 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; LEROY RAVENELL, Individually and in his 

Official Capacity as the Sheriff of the Orangeburg County Sheriffs Office; SOUTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; LEROY SMITH, 

Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Agency Director of the South 

Carolina Department of Public Safety; TOWN OF SANTEE; SANTEE POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH SERRANO, Individually and in his Official Capacity as 

the Chief of Police of the Town of Santee; ALISON K. B. HARMON; FRED D. 

RICE; BUIST M. SMITH; KEITH A. CLINE,

 Defendants.

No. 22-1471

PAUL TARASHUK, Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul David Tarashuk 

Deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1471 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 6
2

v.

BUIST M. SMITH,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

CLIFFORD A. DOROSKI; JAMIE D. GIVENS; ORANGEBURG COUNTY; 

ORANGEBURG COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; DANNY 

RIVERS; ORANGEBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; LEROY 

RAVENELL, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Sheriff of the 

Orangeburg County Sheriffs Office; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC SAFETY; LEROY SMITH, Individually and in his Official Capacity as 

the Agency Director of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety; TOWN OF 

SANTEE; SANTEE POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH SERRANO, Individually 

and in his Official Capacity as the Chief of Police of the Town of Santee; 

ALISON K. B. HARMON; FRED D. RICE; KEITH A. CLINE,

 Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:19-cv-02495-JMC)

Submitted: September 29, 2023 Decided: October 10, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

No. 22-1470 affirmed; No. 22-1471 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Damon C. Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Russell T. Burke, Columbia, South Carolina, Jordan C. Calloway, 

MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1471 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 6
3

PER CURIAM:

Paul Tarashuk initiated the underlying action against Deputy Clifford A. Doroski, 

Officer Buist M. Smith, and various other South Carolina state officials after his son, 

26-year-old Paul David Tarashuk (“Decedent”), was fatally struck by a vehicle on 

Interstate 95 (“I-95”) in South Carolina. In No. 22-1470, Doroski appeals the district 

court’s denial of his summary judgment motion based on a qualified immunity defense to 

Tarashuk’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference. In a cross-appeal, No. 

22-1471, Tarashuk appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Smith based 

on qualified immunity on Tarashuk’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for bystander liability. We 

affirm in No. 22-1470, and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in No. 22-1471. 

Generally, denials of summary judgment are interlocutory orders not subject to 

appellate review. See Williams v. Strickland, 917 F.3d 763, 767 (4th Cir. 2019). However, 

denials of qualified immunity can be immediately appealed under the collateral order 

doctrine. See id. at 767-68. “A district court’s denial of qualified immunity on summary 

judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court did 

on summary judgment.” Halcomb v. Ravenell, 992 F.3d 316, 319 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Our jurisdiction over such interlocutory appeals is limited to the 

extent the denial of qualified immunity “turns on an issue of law.” Hicks v. Ferreya, 965 

F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2020) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Thus, we do not disturb “the district court’s assessment of the record evidence” on appeal. 

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1471 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 3 of 6
4

In assessing an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity at the summary 

judgment stage, we first separate “the district court’s legal conclusions regarding 

entitlement to qualified immunity,” over which we have jurisdiction, “from its 

determinations regarding factual disputes,” over which we do not have jurisdiction. Id. at 

234. “Once the district court’s decision has been so parsed, we must also examine the 

parties’ appellate arguments to ensure that we only consider those legal questions formally 

raised on appeal.” Id. at 235. This examination “is particularly important in interlocutory 

appeals regarding qualified immunity, because a party can so focus its appellate argument 

on factual disputes that it fails to raise a single legal question appropriate for appellate 

review.” Id. at 235 n.8; Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 314 (1995) (recognizing 

jurisdictional defect in interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity where 

reviewing court cannot “find any such separate [legal] question—one that is significantly 

different from the fact-related legal issues that likely underlie the plaintiff’s claim on the 

merits” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

With respect to the underlying question, we review a district court’s denial of 

qualified immunity de novo. Hensley ex rel. N.C. v. Price, 876 F.3d 573, 579 (4th Cir. 

2017). In evaluating an official’s qualified immunity claim, we consider two issues: (1) 

“whether a constitutional violation occurred,” and (2) “whether the [constitutional] right

violated was clearly established.” Id. at 580 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Qualified 

immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violation but who, in light of clearly 

established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1471 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 4 of 6
5

In No. 22-1470, Doroski argues that the district court erred by denying his motion 

for summary judgment on the deliberate indifference claim. Specifically, he claims that 

the court erred in denying him qualified immunity on the ground that Decedent was a 

pretrial detainee and that his constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the 

incident. In Tarashuk v. Givens, 53 F.4th 154, 164-67 (4th Cir. 2022)—a case that arose 

from the same facts as this appeal—we affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified 

immunity to Jamie Givens, an Emergency Medical Technician, and Alison Harmon, a 

paramedic, on Tarashuk’s deliberate indifference claim. Because Doroski raises the same 

claim and relies on the same arguments as Givens and Harmon—issues of law surrounding 

the second prong of the qualified immunity determination—Doroski’s challenge is 

foreclosed by our decision in Tarashuk. See Payne v. Taslimi, 998 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 

2021) (noting that one panel will not overrule a decision issued by another panel). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order in No. 22-1470. 

Turning to the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Smith on Tarashuk’s 

bystander liability claim, the subject of cross-appeal No. 22-1471, we may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Tarashuk seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 

39, 43 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he collateral order doctrine does not confer appellate 

jurisdiction over an order dismissing claims against a defendant on the basis of qualified 

immunity, where other claims remain pending in the district court.”). Because the district 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1471 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 5 of 6
6

court has not entered final judgment in this action, we dismiss No. 22-1471 for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

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. 

No. 22-1470, AFFIRMED;

No. 22-1471, DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1471 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 6 of 6