Marvin Harris v. Christopher Rosemeier

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1165 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1165

MARVIN HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER ROSEMEIER; INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER HILLIARD; CORP. JONATHAN WELLS; INVESTIGATOR CHARLES TAYLOR, JR., Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:22-cv-00582-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion

Rosalie Fessier, Brittany Elizabeth Shipley, TIMBERLAKE SMITH, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellants. Marvin Harris, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1165 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Defendants, Christopher Rosemeier, Christopher Hilliard, Jonathan Wells, and Charles Taylor, Jr., seek to appeal the district court’s order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity. This court 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 Defendants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because the district court’s denial of qualified immunity was based on the lack of sufficient undisputed facts to render a decision. See, e.g., Yates v. Terry, 817 F.3d 877, 882 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[W]hen a district court denies a claim of qualified immunity based on the insufficiency of the facts[,] that determination is not immediately appealable.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal 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.

DISMISSED