Case Name: Michael R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; Jane Doe Clinckscales; Rufus Fleming, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellants, and Givens, Records Office Manager; Houston Shiflett, Unit Manager; Avon Quiero; Jane Doe Stem, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-28
Citations: 119 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 04-6574
Parties: Michael R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; Jane Doe Clinckscales; Rufus Fleming, Regional Director, Defendants—Appellants, and Givens, Records Office Manager; Houston Shiflett, Unit Manager; Avon Quiero; Jane Doe Stem, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
Michael R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; Jane Doe Clinckscales; Rufus Fleming, Regional Director, Defendants—Appellants, and Givens, Records Office Manager; Houston Shiflett, Unit Manager; Avon Quiero; Jane Doe Stem, Defendants.
No. 04-6574.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 29, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 28, 2005.
Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants.
Michael R. Johnson, Appellee, pro se.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellants have filed an appeal of the district court's order denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. It is well established that a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment. Renn v. Garrison, 100 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir.1996) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)). We review the district court's denial of a defense of qualified immunity de novo. Hodge v. Jones, 31 F.3d 157, 163 (4th Cir.1994).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307 (E.D.Va.2004). We deny Johnson's motions for sanctions and to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. We express no view as to whether Johnson will ultimately be able to establish the objective and subjective elements of his ETS claim. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED