Case Name: James Smith WHITLOCK, III, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jared GREENLEE, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-11
Citations: 583 F. App'x 177
Docket Number: No. 14-1273
Parties: James Smith WHITLOCK, III, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jared GREENLEE, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
James Smith WHITLOCK, III, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jared GREENLEE, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-1273.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 11, 2014.
Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., Kari Russwurm Johnson, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. James Smith Whit-lock, III, Appellee Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Smith Whitlock, III, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action against Jared Greenlee, alleging that, because there was no probable cause to support either a search of Whitlock's vehicle or his subsequent arrest, both the search and the arrest violated Whitlock's Fourth Amendment rights. Whitlock also raised related state law claims. Greenlee filed a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion with respect to the state law claims but denying it with respect to the Fourth Amendment claims. Over Greenlee's objections, the district court adopted the report, denying the summary judgment motion in part and granting it in part. Greenlee noted a timely appeal.
This court may exercise jurisdiction over final decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). While interlocutory orders generally are not appeal-able, an order denying a claim of qualified 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, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (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 so as to preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not immediately appealable. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995); Culosi v. Bullock, 596 F.3d 195, 201 (4th Cir.2010).
Because the qualified immunity determination in this case turns on unresolved questions of fact, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED.