Lisa M. Smith, individually v. Matthew W. Jennings, individually

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished order.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.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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, 90 F.4th 636, 650 (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, 965 F.3d 302, 308
(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,
90 F.4th at 650 (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, 965
F.3d at 309 (quoting Williams v. Strickland, 917 F.3d 763, 768 (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 of 3 --

3
Id. at 312 (quoting Williams, 917 F.3d at 768). 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 of 3 --