Geoffrey Shegog v. City of Herculaneum Defendant Timothy Schiele, in his individual

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3129
___________________________
Geoffrey Shegog
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
City of Herculaneum
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Timothy Schiele, in his individual and official capacities; Michael Jennewein, in
his individual and official capacities
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: September 22, 2025
Filed: September 25, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM.
Missouri police officers Timothy Schiele and Michael Jennewein appeal
following the interlocutory denial of qualified immunity on a Fourth Amendment
claim in Geoffrey Shegog’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After carefully considering the
record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Krein v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir.
2001). The officers did not timely appeal following the district court’s1 summary-
judgment order, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 188-89
(2011), and the subsequent pre-trial rulings that they now attempt to appeal are not
reviewable on interlocutory appeal, see, e.g., Ultra-Precision Mfg. Ltd. v. Ford Motor
Co., 338 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The district court’s written order on the
parties’ pretrial motions did not alter or vacate its prior summary-judgment ruling,
and the officers may seek further review, if necessary, following trial. See Taylor v.
Carter, 960 F.2d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny, as moot,
Shegog’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
______________________________
1The Honorable Stephen R. Welby, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --