Court Opinion

ID: 9890000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 21:00:31.390317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:58.002556
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1470      Doc: 32        Filed: 10/10/2023   Pg: 1 of 6

                                            UNPUBLISHED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: 22-1470      Doc: 32         Filed: 10/10/2023    Pg: 2 of 6

                     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.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1470      Doc: 32         Filed: 10/10/2023     Pg: 3 of 6

        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).

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1470      Doc: 32          Filed: 10/10/2023     Pg: 4 of 6

               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).

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1470      Doc: 32          Filed: 10/10/2023     Pg: 5 of 6

               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

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1470         Doc: 32    Filed: 10/10/2023    Pg: 6 of 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

                                                  6