USCA4 Appeal: 24-1877 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1877

LISA M. SMITH, individually and in her capacity as Executrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Shawn A. Smith (deceased),

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW W. JENNINGS, individually and in his official capacity as employee of the County of Roanoke, Virginia,

Defendant – Appellant,

and

ROANOKE COUNTY, Virginia,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Senior District Judge. (7:22-cv-00588-MFU-CKM)

Argued: January 30, 2025 Decided: February 18, 2025

Before KING, RUSHING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished order. Judge Rushing directed entry of the order with the concurrences of Judge King and Judge Berner. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1877 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

ARGUED: Jennifer Royer, ROYER LAW FIRM, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Terry Neill Grimes, TERRY N. GRIMES, ESQ., PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Kaley J. Gordon-Shupp, TERRY N. GRIMES, ESQ., PC, Roanoke, Virginia; Melvin E. Williams, Meghan A. Strickler, WILLIAMS & STRICKLER, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

ORDER

RUSHING, Circuit Judge:

Matthew W. Jennings, an officer with the Roanoke County Police Department,

appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment based on

qualified immunity. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

“[A] district court’s order denying summary judgment is generally not immediately

appealable.” English v. Clarke,

(4th Cir. 2024). Denials of summary

judgment as to qualified immunity, however, “may be appealed immediately under the

collateral order doctrine” in certain circumstances. Hicks v. Ferreyra,

(4th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction to immediately review an order denying qualified

immunity “only to the extent that the court’s decision turned on an issue of law.” English,

(internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, our review in this

procedural posture is “‘limited to [one] narrow legal question: if we take the facts as the

district court gives them to us, and we view those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff,’ [is] the defendant officer[] ‘still entitled to qualified immunity?’” Hicks,

(quoting Williams v. Strickland,

(4th Cir. 2019)).

Jennings does “not argue that ‘if we take the facts as the district court [gave] them

to us,’ then the district court erred as a legal matter” in denying him qualified immunity.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1877 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/18/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

at 312 (quoting Williams,

). Instead, he contests the district court’s

assessment of the factual record. We lack jurisdiction to consider that argument on

interlocutory review. Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.

FOR THE COURT

/s/Nwamaka Anowi Clerk

3