Jeremiah Metcalf v. Andrew Cramer

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-2070 ____________ JEREMIAH L. METCALF v. ANDREW CRAMER; KIMBERLY WOLFE; SHIPPENSBURG BOROUGH ANDREW CRAMER; SHIPPENSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT Appellants ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 1-18-cv-02229) District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson ____________ Argued on May 21, 2024 Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and McKEE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 18, 2024) Walter F. Kawalec, III [ARGUED] Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 15000 Midlantic Drive Suite 200, P.O. Box 5429 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 Counsel for Appellants Harry T. Coleman [ARGUED] Suite 316 N. Main Street Carbondale, PA 18407 Counsel for Appellee _______________ OPINION* ______________ FREEMAN, Circuit Judge.

Shippensburg Police Officer Andrew Cramer and the Shippensburg Police Department appeal the District Court’s order denying them summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I Officer Cramer responded to a call about a vehicle idling in a parking lot. When he and his colleague arrived, they discovered Jeremiah Metcalf asleep in the vehicle.

After rousing him, Cramer asked Metcalf to exit the vehicle so he could search it.

Metcalf complied, but a few minutes later, he entered Cramer’s police cruiser and began driving it. Cramer pursued Metcalf on foot. As Metcalf turned toward the exit, Cramer fired his gun at Metcalf and hit him in the shoulder.

Metcalf filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants. As relevant here, he alleged that Cramer violated his constitutional right to be free from excessive force. Following discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

A Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that Cramer’s motion for summary judgment be denied on qualified immunity grounds. The R&R stated that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Metcalf posed a danger to Cramer or the public. Cramer did not object to the R&R, and the District Court adopted it in its entirety. Cramer and the Police Department timely appealed.1 II2 Under the collateral order doctrine, we may review an interlocutory appeal in limited circumstances. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 310 (1995). We may review the denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment “only to the extent that the denial turns on an issue of law.” Walker v. Horn, 286 F.3d 705, 710 (3d Cir. 2002). However, “when a District Court rests its denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on the existence of a genuine issue of fact, . . . we have no jurisdiction.” Id. Because the District Court denied summary judgment due to a genuine issue of material fact, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal and must dismiss it.3