Brian Dunn v. Morgan Millirons
675 F. App'x 314
4th Cir.2017Background
- Bryan Scott Dunn sued Sheriff Morgan Millirons under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation after Dunn’s employment termination.
- Millirons moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the district court denied the motion in part.
- The appeal challenges only the district court’s denial of qualified immunity (legal question).
- The Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction because the denial turned on law, not material fact.
- The panel reviewed de novo whether the facts (viewed for Dunn) showed a constitutional violation and whether the right was clearly established.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding Millirons is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dunn’s First Amendment rights were violated by his termination | Dunn argues termination was retaliatory for protected speech | Millirons contends conduct did not violate constitutional rights or was objectively reasonable | Court assumed for qualified-immunity analysis that a violation could be shown (denial of immunity upheld) |
| Whether the right was clearly established at the time of termination | Dunn: precedent clearly protected his speech; reasonable official would know termination unlawful | Millirons: no controlling precedent placed the constitutional question beyond debate | Court held the right was sufficiently clearly established to deny qualified immunity |
| Proper standard on summary judgment and qualified immunity | Dunn relies on resolving factual disputes in his favor | Millirons argues legal question appropriate for summary judgment | Court applied de novo review, noting genuine factual disputes preclude summary judgment on facts but legal clarity can be decided now |
| Whether the denial of qualified immunity is appealable | Dunn: N/A | Millirons: challenges interlocutory denial as final for appeal | Court confirmed interlocutory appeal permissible where denial turns on law, not material facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (standards for pleading and legal-vs-factual determinations)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (qualified immunity requires clearly established law)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (genuine factual disputes must be resolved in plaintiff’s favor at summary judgment)
- Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2015) (two-pronged qualified immunity inquiry described)
- Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, 789 F.3d 389 (4th Cir. 2015) (appealability of qualified-immunity decisions where law, not facts, controls)