Melody Cooper v. Officer James Doyle

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 40

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2131

MELODY COOPER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kwamena Ocran,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

OFFICER JAMES DOYLE; OFFICER KYLE KHUEN; SGT. WILLIE DELGADO; CPL. LARBI DAKKOUNI, Individually and in their official capacity as a Gaithersburg Police Officer,

Defendants – Appellants,

and

THE CITY OF GAITHERSBURG; UNKNOWN OFFICERS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-00052-DKC)

Argued: October 24, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025

Before KING, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Benjamin joined. Judge Rushing wrote a dissenting opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 40

ARGUED: Jason Levine, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellants. Brian K. McDaniel, THE COCHRAN FIRM, CD/CRS, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Raymond R. Mulera, William Dickerson, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Hanover, Maryland; Kevin Karpinski, John Karpinski, KARPINSKI, CORNBROOKS, & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 3 of 40

KING, Circuit Judge:

This District of Maryland civil action arises from the January 2021 fatal shooting of

24-year-old Kwamane Ocran by officers of the Gaithersburg Police Department. Relevant

here, plaintiff Melody Cooper, in her capacity as personal representative of Ocran’s estate,

has asserted a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

defendant police officers James Doyle, Kyle Khuen, Willie Delgado, and Larbi Dakkouni

(collectively, the “Officers”). In July 2024, at the summary judgment stage of these

proceedings, the district court denied the Officers qualified immunity with respect to the

excessive force claim. See Cooper v. Doyle, No. 8:22-cv-00052 (D. Md. July 29, 2024),

ECF No. 54 (the “Summary Judgment Ruling”). Thereafter, the court denied the Officers’

motion for reconsideration of the Summary Judgment Ruling. See Cooper v. Doyle, No.

8:22-cv-00052 (D. Md. Oct. 16, 2024), ECF No. 59 (the “Reconsideration Ruling”).

By this collateral order appeal, the Officers seek to challenge the Summary

Judgment Ruling and the Reconsideration Ruling. As explained herein, we are constrained

to dismiss the appeal in substantial part. More specifically, we dismiss to the extent the

Officers prematurely and improperly seek to challenge the district court’s various and

several determinations that genuine disputes of material fact exist on the summary

judgment record. Otherwise, we affirm the court’s determination that — considering the

undisputed facts — the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. And we remand for

such other and further proceedings as may be appropriate, including a jury trial.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 4 of 40

I.

A.

In January 2022, plaintiff Cooper — decedent Ocran’s mother — initiated this civil

lawsuit in the District of Maryland against the four Officers and several other defendants,

alleging six claims for relief related to the 2021 police killing of Ocran. The sole claim of

relevance in this collateral order appeal is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim asserted against the

Officers for use of excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

1.

The evidence adduced in the underlying discovery proceedings reflects that, in

January 2021, the four defendant Officers were members of the Street Crimes Unit

(“SCU”) of the Gaithersburg Police Department. 1 The SCU is a “plainclothes unit” that

conducts investigations in areas such as firearms, narcotics, and fugitive operations. See

J.A. 64. 2 Several years earlier, in 2016 and 2017, defendant Corporal Dakkouni had

participated in an investigation of Ocran, which resulted in Ocran’s arrest. Soon thereafter,

Corporal Dakkouni began working with a “confidential informant” (the “CI”).

In December 2020, the CI reached out to Corporal Dakkouni with information

regarding Ocran. More specifically, the CI provided Dakkouni with information that Ocran

1 As the district court was obliged to do, we must view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the nonmoving party. See, e.g., Aleman v. City of Charlotte, 80 F.4th 264, 270 n.1 (4th Cir. 2023). 2 Citations herein to “J.A. ___” refer to the contents of the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this collateral order appeal.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 5 of 40

had recently been released from prison, was in possession of a firearm, and was “looking

to make a move.” See J.A. 252. Upon verification that Ocran was actually a “prohibited

possessor” of a handgun following his release from prison, an investigation was

commenced with respect to Ocran by the SCU and Dakkouni. Id. at 256.

Several unsuccessful attempts were made by the SCU to locate Ocran in December

2020. Around that time, the CI advised Corporal Dakkouni that Ocran was staying with

his girlfriend in the Chelsea Park Apartments in Gaithersburg, but that Ocran’s residence

was in the Silver Spring area of Maryland. That month, Dakkouni also asked the CI

whether the CI could get Ocran to leave the Gaithersburg apartment, and the CI answered

in the affirmative. In an exchange of text messages, Dakkouni asked the CI whether Ocran

“sell[s],” and the CI thereupon responded, “[n]uh he a jack boy” with a “[g]un on him

every[ ]where he go,” and that he is a “[l]oose cannon.” See J.A. 441.

In that same December 2020 conversation, the CI texted Corporal Dakkouni that

Ocran “said he not going back to jail he will shoot it out.” See J.A. 442. The CI also related

that Ocran’s “stick” had an “extension on it” which “[h]olds hella shells.” Id. Dakkouni

then asked the CI if there were any pictures of Ocran. The CI responded with a picture of

a person’s hand grasping a handgun and the message “[t]hat’s it,” as well as a social media

page with a photo of Ocran. Id. at 443. Furthermore, Dakkouni asked the CI whether

Ocran is a “shooter,” to which the CI rejoined, “He claims.” Id. at 444.

Later in December 2020, Corporal Dakkouni informed defendant Officers Doyle

and Khuen that Ocran was carrying firearms, that Ocran was a prohibited possessor of

5 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 6 of 40

firearms, and that the information had come from a credible source (i.e., the CI). Khuen

then participated in the initial investigation by monitoring Ocran’s social media accounts.

On January 8, 2021, the CI informed Corporal Dakkouni that Ocran was in

possession of a handgun that he was going to attempt to sell in the parking lot of the Chelsea

Park Apartments in Gaithersburg. The CI also reported that the CI was meeting Ocran —

at Ocran’s request — because Ocran wanted the CI to be present when Ocran sold the

weapon. Dakkouni thereupon contacted the SCU, requesting that a team of officers arrive

to work early that same day to initiate surveillance on Ocran. Dakkouni also apprised his

superior officer, defendant Sergeant Delgado, of these developments.

Officers Doyle and Khuen promptly responded to Corporal Dakkouni’s request and

began undercover surveillance at the Chelsea Park Apartments around 1:00 p.m. on January

8, 2021. At approximately 2:00 p.m., Sergeant Delgado joined the ongoing surveillance

effort. At all relevant times, Dakkouni remained in contact with the CI. Notably, as

members of the “plainclothes” SCU unit, the Officers carried their badges but they

otherwise were not in uniform and conducted surveillance from unmarked covert vehicles.

Initially, the Officers planned to allow the illegal handgun purchase to transpire

under surveillance, follow the purported buyer and do a “stop” or “takedown,” and then

later return with an arrest and search warrant for Ocran. See J.A. 97, 276. The CI, however,

soon informed Corporal Dakkouni that the firearm sale was not going to take place that

day. As a result of the expected sale being cancelled, the Officers resolved to surveil Ocran

once he left the apartment, with the intention of interdicting Ocran in a safe location.

6 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 7 of 40

Throughout the afternoon and into the evening hours of January 8, 2021, Corporal

Dakkouni and the CI continued to exchange text messages, in which they discussed Ocran’s

plans and location. In that particular exchange, the CI denied knowing precisely which

apartment Ocran was in at the Chelsea Park Apartments, although the CI eventually

identified the building and provided Dakkouni with directions to the door. The CI

requested that the police not enter the apartment unit because Ocran’s girlfriend — with

whom the CI had a close relationship — was also present. Eventually, the CI confirmed to

Dakkouni that Ocran was leaving the apartment to go to a nearby International House of

Pancakes (“IHOP”) and that Ocran was in possession of his handgun. See J.A. 326.

Upon observing Ocran leave the apartment building with the CI, the Officers

followed the two men as they walked to a nearby shopping center where the IHOP was

located. Officer Khuen observed Ocran and the CI part ways shortly after arriving at the

shopping center. Around that time, Sergeant Delgado could no longer see Ocran and asked

his colleagues if Ocran was displaying any mannerisms consistent with someone carrying

a handgun. The Officers responded affirmatively, noting that Ocran was guarding his

waistband, placing his hand in his waistband, and looking around. After Ocran and the CI

parted ways, the Officers followed Ocran back towards the Chelsea Park Apartments. The

Officers then resolved to stop Ocran before he reached those apartments. According to

Corporal Dakkouni, Ocran’s movements as he returned to the apartments were consistent

with someone holding a gun in his waistband. Eventually, each of the Officers returned to

7 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 8 of 40

the parking lot area by the apartments. By that point in the evening, it was dark outside,

although the parking lot area was illuminated by streetlights and lights from the buildings.

2.

In depositions conducted in the discovery proceedings, the Officers each recounted

his version of the events surrounding the fatal shooting of Ocran that evening of January

8, 2021. According to Officer Khuen, upon seeing Ocran outside of the Chelsea Park

Apartments, he displayed his police badge, shined his flashlight on Ocran, and stated,

“[P]olice, I need to talk to you.” See J.A. 101. Khuen related that Ocran responded, “[O]h

fuck,” grabbed his waistband, and began to run. Id. Khuen described the ensuing chase:

Q: And how far away from Ocran were you at the time that you started chasing him?

A: I want to say four or five feet.

Q: And what do you recall observing at that time?

A: As I was chasing him through . . . the grass median in the parking lot right in front of where my car was parked, Corporal Dakkouni was running around the other side of the parking lot to try to cut him off. We’re yelling police, stop running . . . I heard Corporal Dakkouni say don’t grab for the gun, don’t grab for the gun. Police, stop running. And at that point I could see Ocran turned with his body like this, extending his arm out towards us and I just see a muzzle flash.

Q: And when you saw the muzzle flash, were you able to — did you hear anything at that time?

A: No, sir.

Q: And how far away were you from Mr. Ocran at that time?

A: I believe it was like five feet, something like that.

8 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 9 of 40

Q: Where was Corporal Dakkouni at that time, at the time that you say you saw this muzzle flash?

A: He was slightly in front of me. To my recollection he was right in front of me to the left.

Q: Okay. Was he closer to Mr. Ocran than you?

A: Yes, sir, he was.

Q: And was Mr. Ocran running away from you at that time?

A: Yes, sir.

* * *

Q: Okay. When you saw this muzzle flash, what did you do?

A: I took my radio and threw it into my left hand, drew my firearm and started firing at Mr. Ocran.

Q: How many times did you fire?

A: I believe it was six.

Id. at 102-04.

According to Sergeant Delgado’s deposition version of the events, Officer Khuen

had passed Ocran before turning around, identifying himself as “police,” and asking Ocran

if they could talk. From approximately 15 yards away, Delgado observed that Khuen was

wearing a badge around his neck and holding a flashlight. According to Delgado, Ocran

said, “Oh, shit,” and began running away from Khuen. See J.A. 192. Delgado related that

he then started chasing Ocran and caught up with Corporal Dakkouni and Khuen, who were

in front of Delgado to his left, and Officer Doyle, who was to his right. As Delgado

explained in his deposition, Ocran and the other officers made a right turn between the

9 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 10 of 40

“Jersey wall” and the apartment building. Id. at 195. Delgado likewise testified that,

during the chase, Ocran looked to his right and left, and, based on the height of Ocran’s

right elbow as he ran away from the officers, Delgado inferred that he was reaching into

his waistband. According to Delgado, he was about 12 to 15 feet behind Ocran at that time.

Delgado further testified that Dakkouni yelled at Ocran, “Don’t do it. Don’t do it. No, no,

no.” Id. at 196. As Delgado would later recall during his deposition:

A: I saw a muzzle flash from the center of all officers.

Q: So were you and Corporal Dakkouni and Officer Doyle and Officer Khuen running in a straight line, or were you all kind of spread out?

A: We were spread out.

Q: And this muzzle flash you say you’re certain came from Mr. Ocran; is that right?

A: It was in the middle, yes.

Q: When you say it was in the middle, what does that mean?

A: Mr. Ocran was in the middle. I said Corporal Dakkouni and Officer Khuen were to my left, [Officer Doyle] was to my right. Directly in front of me was Mr. Ocran.

Q: Okay.

A: The muzzle flash came from the middle.

* * *

Q: Did you hear a gun fire at the time that you say that you saw this muzzle flash?

A: No.

10 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 11 of 40

Q: And you — at that point in time, when you say you saw this muzzle flash, would you say you were . . . about 12 feet away from him?

A: Approximately, yes.

Q: And so what did you do after that?

A: I drew my firearm.

Q: What did you do after that?

A: Fired.

Q: Okay. What were you firing at?

A: Mr. Ocran.

Q: Okay. Were you the first officer to fire at Mr. Ocran?

A: No.

Q: How long after you saw the muzzle flash was it that you began to fire?

A: Almost immediately.

Q: . . . Did you see any other members of your team draw their weapons and fire before you?

A: I heard gunfire before me, but I didn’t see them draw, aim. I heard gunfire.

Id. at 196-99. According to Delgado’s testimony, he then proceeded to fire two shots at

Ocran, as Ocran was supposedly standing with his body angled toward the officers and

with his right hand stretching out. Delgado related that Ocran was pointing the firearm in

the direction of Doyle. Delgado further testified that he fired his weapon at Ocran because

he was in fear of imminent bodily harm to himself or the other Officers.

11 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 12 of 40

Meanwhile, Corporal Dakkouni testified in his deposition that, when confronted by

Officer Khuen, Ocran had one hand in his waistband. According to Dakkouni, Ocran said,

“Oh, shit,” and started running away. See J.A. 334. Dakkouni testified that he had jogged

to get closer as Khuen made his approach, and then beelined toward Ocran once Ocran

began to flee. Dakkouni related that Khuen was closest to Ocran when the foot chase

began, while Dakkouni was approximately 15 feet from Ocran. Furthermore, Dakkouni

testified that he passed Khuen, came up directly behind Ocran, and screamed, “Police.

Police. Let me see your hands. Stop reaching in your waistband,” and “Police. Stop

running. Stop reaching. Don’t do it, don’t do it.” Id. at 338. According to Dakkouni,

Ocran continued to run with both hands near his waistband, and he looked backward to his

right twice, gazing toward Dakkouni. Dakkouni recalled that he did not see whether Ocran

was holding a handgun, but he believed that Ocran was armed based on the CI’s

information, Ocran’s mannerisms, and his experience and training as a police officer.

Additionally, Corporal Dakkouni elaborated that, during the foot pursuit, he

changed his position in relation to Ocran, a maneuver described as “getting off the X.” See

J.A. 338. When Ocran looked back a third time, Dakkouni saw a muzzle flash. Dakkouni

said that he did not hear anything at the time he saw the muzzle flash, and that he was

unaware of any officers being struck by a bullet. After he saw the muzzle flash, however,

Dakkouni related that he immediately fired at Ocran from approximately seven feet away.

Meanwhile, Officer Doyle testified that, as Officer Khuen initially contacted Ocran,

Ocran dug his right arm deeper into his coat pocket area, held down on his jacket pocket,

12 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 13 of 40

and started to run away from Khuen through the parking lot. Doyle related that he did not

see a firearm in Ocran’s possession. According to Doyle, he began pursuing Ocran. Doyle

described being behind Khuen but in front of Sergeant Delgado. Doyle recounted the

Officers saying “stop” multiple times, as well as Ocran turning the corner and looking back

towards them three times. See J.A. 419. In Doyle’s accounting of the events, Ocran turned

his body, and Doyle saw a firearm in Ocran’s hand. Doyle thereupon related that he went

to grab his weapon, but his jacket was caught in his holster, so he looked down. At that

point, Doyle claimed, he heard a shot fired while he was looking down but did not see a

flash. Doyle testified that he believed the shot was fired in his direction based on his

experience both in the military and as a police officer. Doyle recounted that he drew his

firearm, saw Ocran’s hand coming back out, and proceeded to fire at Ocran.

3.

In the aftermath of the fatal police shooting that took Ocran’s life, the Montgomery

County Police Department commenced an investigation, which was supervised by the

Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office. As part of that investigation, the four defendant

Officers were each interviewed, and video and forensic evidence from the scene was

reviewed. That investigation determined that the Officers had fired 27 rounds at Ocran —

23 shell casings of which were collected at the scene. Specifically, the investigation

determined that Sergeant Delgado had fired one round; Officer Khuen had fired six rounds;

Officer Doyle had fired eight rounds; and Corporal Dakkouni had fired 12 rounds.

13 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 14 of 40

The investigation also established that a Hi-Point 9mm handgun, with one round in

the chamber and three additional rounds in the magazine, was recovered from the area near

Ocran’s right hand. According to the investigators, no shell casings or projectiles were

recovered from the Hi-Point 9mm handgun. The investigation revealed there were no non-

law enforcement witnesses to the police shooting, although some nearby witnesses had

heard the shots, heard someone yelling, and saw the Officers pursuing Ocran on foot.

Additionally, a postmortem examination was conducted as part of the investigation

into Ocran’s death and an autopsy report was issued. See J.A. 484-495 (the “autopsy

report”). The autopsy report revealed that Ocran’s death was ruled a “HOMICIDE” caused

by “Multiple . . . Gunshot Wounds.” Id. at 493-94. Of the eight gunshot wounds that had

been found in Ocran’s body, seven had a wound path from back to front (indicating that

Ocran was shot in the back), while one had an “indeterminate” path. Id. at 490. 3

4.

The plaintiff also retained an expert — Dr. Tyrone Powers — who provided a 33-

page analysis and assessment of liability. See J.A. 497-529. Therein, Dr. Powers concluded

3 We observe that the investigators also tested Ocran’s winter coat for gunshot residue, along with the plastic bags that had been used to cover his hands during the postmortem examination. Particles characteristic of gunshot residue were found on the right cuff and sleeve of Ocran’s coat. Moreover, one particle characteristic of gunshot residue was found on the bag covering Ocran’s left hand, but no gunshot residue particles were found on the bag covering Ocran’s right hand. Meanwhile, according to DNA testing of the firearm that had been recovered by the Officers next to Ocran’s body, there was “very strong support for Kwamena Ocran to be included as a contributor to the mixed DNA profile obtained from” the grip and slide of the firearm. See J.A. 448.

14 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 15 of 40

that the force used by the Officers “was not [objectively] reasonable and [was] inconsistent

with accepted standards of police practices, polices and training for [Corporal] Dakkouni

and members of the . . . [SCU] to shoot . . . Ocran.” Id. at 528. Powers also opined that

“[t]he use of force used against . . . Ocran was excessive and unjustified; it[] was not

objectively reasonable, was unreasonable, disproportional, and unnecessary.” Id.

5.

It was further revealed in discovery that, within a week after the fatal shooting of

Ocran on January 8, 2021 — and before speaking to the investigators from the Montgomery

County Police Department and the Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office — the

Officers had convened at Sergeant Delgado’s house to bring their “families together so that

[they] were in this together and ma[k]e sure that everybody was okay.” See J.A. 400.

Specifically, the Officers met on at least two occasions after the shooting. According to

Officer Khuen’s deposition testimony, the Officers did not talk about the shooting, but “just

check[ed] on each other to make sure each other was okay.” Id. at 75. Meanwhile, Delgado

testified that the Officers “talked about how tragic [the shooting] was.” Id. at 204. In his

deposition, Corporal Dakkouni related that the Officers did not talk about this lawsuit. And

according to Officer Doyle, the Officers did not discuss the case “except for saying that it

was a tragic event and making sure that everybody was okay.” Id. at 401. 4

4 Officer Khuen recounted calling Sergeant Delgado and Corporal Dakkouni shortly after their depositions in this litigation, apparently to ask them how they were doing. Officer Doyle also testified that he called Delgado shortly after his deposition to “make sure that he was good after giving his account at the deposition.” See J.A. 426 (Officer (Continued)

15 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 16 of 40

B.

Following the close of discovery, in October 2023, the Officers moved for summary

judgment on, inter alia, the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Along

with their summary judgment motion, the Officers included four proposed exhibits of video

recordings related to the shooting incident. These recordings included parking lot security

camera footage from the Chelsea Park Apartments, a cell phone video taken from inside

that apartment complex, and footage from two body-worn cameras of the Officers. 5

In their summary judgment memorandum, the Officers readily acknowledged the

two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis. See Cooper v. Doyle, No. 8:22-cv-00052,

at 19-20 (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2023), ECF No. 44-1 (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001),

for proposition that assessment of qualified immunity follows two-step approach). First

and primarily, the Officers maintained that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred

because they had been confronted with “the imminent threat of death or serious bodily

injury,” such that their use of force against Ocran was objectively reasonable. Id. at 14.

Next, the Officers thus asserted that “[a]t the risk of stating the obvious, there is no need

for [the district court] to weigh the second prong of the [qualified immunity] framework.”

Id. at 20. The Officers then summarily declared — without citation to any controlling or

Doyle: “I will say this, it was not about the deposition, but I wanted to make sure that he was good after giving his account at the deposition, if that makes any sense”). 5 We observe that the district court granted the Officers leave to file the video recordings as exhibits, finding that “[g]ood cause exists to permit the filings” for consideration at the summary judgment stage. See Summary Judgment Ruling 19.

16 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 17 of 40

persuasive authority — that “even if [the court] did so, the analysis must conclude that

there was no clearly established right [for Ocran] to point a handgun at law enforcement

while fleeing, let alone to discharge the weapon in the Officers’ direction.” Id.

In response, the plaintiff contended that the Officers’ use of deadly force was not

objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the Officers were not entitled

to qualified immunity. See Cooper v. Doyle, No. 8:22-cv-00052 (Nov. 20, 2023), ECF No.

51-1. 6 As to the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff maintained that

“there are facts in material dispute as to the violation of . . . Ocran’s Fourth Amendment

rights,” and that “[t]he facts here, when viewed in the light most favorable to the [p]laintiff,

showed that . . . Ocran . . . at worst possessed a firearm and ran from the police, but there

are disputes as to whether he drew, pointed and fired the firearm at the [O]fficers.” Id. at

8. Meanwhile, as to the second prong — i.e., whether the constitutional right at issue was

clearly established at the time of violation in January 2021 — the plaintiff emphasized that

“[t]he [Officers] bear[] the burden of proof.” Id. On that score, the plaintiff maintained

that the Officers failed to demonstrate that the Fourth Amendment right at issue was not

clearly established in January 2021, in that they “were on notice that they were not allowed

to shoot an armed person who is not threatening them or any other person, and not

presenting an imminent threat of death or serious harm to them.” Id. at 9.

6 The plaintiff also sought leave to file an audio recording as an exhibit to her response in opposition to the Officers’ summary judgment motion. The district court granted such leave for the same reasons that it granted the Officers’ request to file certain video recordings along with their summary judgment motion. See supra note 5.

17 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 18 of 40

C.

By its Summary Judgment Ruling of July 2024, the district court denied the

Officers’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment

excessive force claim. The court initially concluded that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s

decision in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), summary judgment is inappropriate

on this record. 7 According to the Summary Judgment Ruling, because the Officers had

“killed the only other potential witness,” the court “‘avoid[ed] simply accepting an officer’s

self-serving statements and . . . consider[ed] all contradictory evidence.’” See Summary

Judgment Ruling 21-22 (quoting Stanton v. Elliott, 25 F.4th 227, 233 (4th Cir. 2022)).

Rather, after carefully considering the parties’ respective contentions and the evidence

adduced in discovery, the Summary Judgment Ruling concluded as follows:

[A] reasonable jury could credit the [O]fficers’ testimony and determine that . . . Ocran pointed his firearm, and perhaps also fired a shot, at [the] Officers. On the other hand, a reasonable jury could conclude, based on the evidence that . . . Ocran was shot in the back while fleeing, that . . . Ocran never turned around to point a gun at [the] Officers. A reasonable jury could also conclude, based on the facts that no cartridge casings from . . . Ocran’s firearm were recovered on the scene and no officers were shot, that . . . Ocran never fired a shot. If . . . Ocran never pointed or fired his firearm, and merely fled the officers, even while armed, then a jury could conclude that an officer would not have reasonably believed that . . . Ocran posed an immediate threat to the [O]fficer’s safety or the safety of anyone else. Because genuine disputes of material fact remain as to whether . . . Ocran pointed and fired his

7 We observe that, pursuant to Graham, a court must employ a standard of “objective reasonableness” in evaluating a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. See 490 U.S. at 399. And the three factors to be considered in applying the objective reasonableness standard are: (1) “the severity of the crime at issue”; (2) “whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others”; and (3) “whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id.

18 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 19 of 40

firearm, [the Officers] are not entitled to summary judgment on [p]laintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim.

Id. at 32-33. 8

Moving on, the district court specifically considered whether the Officers are

entitled to qualified immunity. Against a backdrop of familiar legal principles pertaining

to qualified immunity, the Summary Judgment Ruling initially observed that “the court has

already determined under the first prong that a reasonable jury could conclude that [the]

Officers violated . . . Ocran’s Fourth Amendment rights[.]” See Summary Judgment Ruling

35 (citing Stanton, 25 F.4th at 233). From there, the Summary Judgment Ruling assessed

whether the Fourth Amendment right at issue was “clearly established,” based on the

undisputed facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.

On that question, the Summary Judgment Ruling observed that, although the

Officers “bear the burden on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis,” they

“identified no authorities holding that such a right was not clearly established.” See

Summary Judgment Ruling 35. Moreover, the Summary Judgment Ruling determined that

“the right not to be shot in the back while fleeing officers when the officers suspected that

the individual was armed but the individual never pointed a firearm at the officers was

clearly established on January 8, 2021.” Id. at 36 (citing Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524,

8 The Summary Judgment Ruling also specifically determined that “a reasonable jury could conclude that [the] Officers communicated with each other [after the shooting] to ensure that their testimony was consistent.” See Summary Judgment Ruling 28. Strikingly, the Officers ignore that determination in their appellate arguments.

19 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 20 of 40

534 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). Consequently, the Summary Judgment Ruling concluded

that the Officers had not established that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

D.

Shortly thereafter, in August 2024, the Officers moved for reconsideration of the

Summary Judgment Ruling. In their motion, the Officers maintained that the Summary

Judgment Ruling “gave undue weight to speculative inferences which are unwarranted on

this record, while discounting in an extraordinary manner the abundant evidence

supporting the [Officers’] position.” See Cooper v. Doyle, No. 8:22-cv-00052, at 2 (D. Md.

Aug. 9, 2024), ECF No. 56. According to the Officers, summary judgment should have

been awarded in their favor on the plaintiff’s excessive force claim because there is no

genuine dispute of material fact as to the “objectively reasonable nature of the . . . Officers’

conduct.” Id. at 13. Of import, the Officers did not raise any argument as to the Summary

Judgment Ruling’s earlier determination that the Officers are not entitled to qualified

immunity, nor did they address the “clearly established” prong of that analysis.

By its Reconsideration Ruling of October 2024, the district court readily denied the

Officers’ request that the court reconsider the Summary Judgment Ruling. Therein, the

court thoroughly and cogently explained that “there is a genuine dispute of material fact”

on the issue of whether “Ocran pointed a firearm at [the] Officers,” along with the issue of

whether Ocran “fired a firearm” at the Officers. See Reconsideration Ruling 6.

* * *

20 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 21 of 40

The Officers timely noted this interlocutory appeal on October 24, 2024, seeking to

challenge both the Summary Judgment Ruling and the Reconsideration Ruling. The

Officers have invoked this Court’s jurisdiction to review those rulings pursuant to the

collateral order doctrine. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985).

II.

We review de novo district court decisions on motions for summary judgment and

qualified immunity. See Aleman v. City of Charlotte, 80 F.4th 264, 283 (4th Cir. 2023).

Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In that regard, the Supreme Court has said that a fact is material

if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and that a genuine

dispute exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

nonmoving party.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

Significantly, a denial of summary judgment is generally not appealable under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, which authorizes appeals only from final decisions of a district court.

Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, however, “a district court’s denial of a claim of

qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final

decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291,” despite “the absence of a final

judgment.” See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). In a collateral order appeal,

“an appellate court can . . . decide purely legal questions relating to qualified immunity.”

21 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 22 of 40

See Witt v. W. Va. State Police, Troop 2, 633 F.3d 272, 275 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation

modified). An appellate court assessing such an appeal, however, cannot “reweigh the

record evidence to determine whether material factual disputes preclude summary

disposition.” Id. (citation modified). Thus, in exercising collateral order jurisdiction, we

must “examine the parties’ appellate arguments to ensure that we only consider those legal

questions formally raised on appeal.” See Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 235 (4th Cir. 2008).

III.

In this collateral order appeal, the Officers primarily maintain that the district court

erred in “determining that material disputes of fact forestalled a finding that the officers

reasonably employed deadly force” against Ocran. See Br. of Appellants 20. For example,

the Officers contend that the court “mischaracterized whether Ocran pointed the gun at the

officers and fired it as ‘material’ disputes of fact.” Id. As the Officers would have it, the

court’s erroneous determination of genuine disputes of material fact infected its ruling on

each prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Alternatively, the Officers argue that even

accepting the court’s version of the undisputed facts, “the right at issue was not clearly

established” at the time the constitutional violation had occurred in January 2021. Id. We

assess — and reject — each of the Officers’ appellate contentions.

22 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 23 of 40

A.

We begin with the Officers’ contention that the district court erroneously identified

genuine disputes of material fact. Simply put, we lack collateral order jurisdiction to

review this contention, such that we must dismiss the Officers’ appeal in substantial part.

As our en banc Court has recognized, we may properly exercise jurisdiction “over

a claim that there was no violation of clearly established law accepting the facts as the

district court viewed them.” See Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525, 530 (4th Cir. 1997) (en

banc) (emphasis added). Writing for our en banc Court in 1997, Judge Wilkins explained

that, in the context of an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, “we

possess no jurisdiction over a claim [interposed by the defendants] that a plaintiff has not

presented enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff’s version of the events actually

occurred.” See Winfield, 106 F.3d at 530 (citing, inter alia, Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304

(1995)). Not only that, but “to the extent that the appealing official seeks to argue the

insufficiency of the evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact — for example, that

the evidence presented was insufficient to support a conclusion that the official engaged in

the particular conduct alleged — we do not possess jurisdiction . . . to consider the claim

and, therefore, may not do so absent some independent jurisdictional base.” Id. at 529-30.

We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the Officers’ numerous challenges to the

district court’s determinations — set forth in the Summary Judgment and Reconsideration

Rulings — that genuine disputes of material fact exist on this record. See Winfield, 106

F.3d at 530; see also Johnson, 515 U.S. at 314. As such, we cannot review the court’s

23 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 24 of 40

determinations that a reasonable jury could conclude (1) that “Ocran never fired a shot” at

the Officers; (2) that “Ocran never pointed a handgun at [the Officers]”; (3) that Ocran

never “reached into his waistband”; (4) that “Ocran was shot in the back while fleeing”;

and (5) that Ocran never “posed an immediate threat to the [O]fficers’ safety or the safety

of anyone else.” See Summary Judgment Ruling 29-33. These disputed issues of material

fact — which the court declined to revisit in its Reconsideration Ruling — are for a jury to

assess. And they simply are not properly before us in this collateral order appeal.

B.

We turn to the “legal issue of whether the undisputed facts disclose that reasonable

officers would have understood that their conduct violated [Ocran’s] clearly established

legal rights.” See Winfield, 106 F.3d at 530 (emphasis added). As explained below, to the

extent the Officers have fairly challenged the district court’s specific legal conclusions

independent of any factual disputes, we agree with the court that Ocran’s Fourth

Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of violation in January 2021.

1.

Section 1983 of Title 42 “creates a cause of action against any person who, acting

under color of state law, abridges a right arising under the Constitution or laws of the United

States.” See Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013); see also Aleman v. City

of Charlotte, 80 F.4th 264, 284 (4th Cir. 2023). Law enforcement officers sued in their

individual capacities under § 1983 may invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity, which

shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does

24 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 25 of 40

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

person would have known.” See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (citation

modified). Qualified immunity is designed to “protect[] law enforcement officers from

bad guesses in gray areas and ensures that they are liable only for transgressing bright

lines.” See Willingham v. Crooke, 412 F.3d 553, 558 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation modified).

As the district court properly recognized in its Summary Judgment Ruling, the

qualified immunity analysis consists of two prongs: (1) whether a statutory or

constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the

time of the violation. See Mays v. Sprinkle, 992 F.3d 295, 301 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)). If the answer to either question is “no,” the

officer being sued is entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. To that

end, the courts possess discretion in deciding which prong to address first. Id. at 236. In

reviewing qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, our job is to “consider

whether there are any material disputes of fact . . . that, when resolved, would amount to

the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” See Stanton v. Elliott, 25 F.4th

227, 234 (4th Cir. 2022). “If there are, summary judgment is inappropriate.” Id.

With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — that is,

whether a constitutional right was clearly established — we look to decisions of the

Supreme Court and our Court to “consider whether officers within our jurisdiction have

been provided fair warning, with sufficient specificity, that their actions would constitute a

deprivation of an individual’s constitutional rights.” See Betton v. Beleu, 942 F.3d 184,

25 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 26 of 40

193-94 (4th Cir. 2019). As the Supreme Court recently explained in this context, “[i]t is

not enough that a rule be suggested by then-existing precedent; the rule’s contours must be

so well defined that it is clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the

situation he confronted.” See City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 595 U.S. 9, 12 (2021) (citation

modified). Nevertheless, “[a] right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual

context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified

immunity.” See Wilson v. Prince George’s Cnty., 893 F.3d 213, 221 (4th Cir. 2018).

Finally — and of especial relevance here — our Court has observed that, even if

“there is no case directly on point factually to inform our [clearly established] analysis,” a

right can nevertheless be clearly established if the “core constitutional principles set forth

in numerous cases lead us to the conclusion that [a plaintiff’s] substantive due process right

was clearly established” at the time of the constitutional violation. See Dean ex rel.

Harkness v. McKinney, 976 F.3d 407, 418 (4th Cir. 2020). In other words, our Court has

recognized that “clearly established law encompasses ‘not only specifically adjudicated

rights, but also those manifestly included within more general applications of the core

constitutional principles invoked.’” See Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 187 (4th Cir.

2018) (quoting Booker v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 855 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2017)).

2.

Against this backdrop, the Officers maintain that the district court erred in

concluding that the Officers violated Ocran’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right

to be free from excessive force. The Officers first assert that “the relevant constitutional

26 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 27 of 40

right is properly defined as the right to make furtive movements and disobey an officer’s

commands while fleeing from law enforcement on foot with a firearm.” See Br. of

Appellants 46. That particular right, the Officers say, is “not clearly established.” Id.

There is an immediately fatal problem with the Officers’ position. Specifically, the

premise of the Officers’ argument rests on facts that the district court deemed to be in

dispute — that is, whether Ocran made any furtive movement while fleeing from the

Officers. See Summary Judgment Ruling 29 n.6 (recognizing that “Ocran may have

reached into his waistband when not captured by the security camera, as [the] Officers

testified, but the court must be careful not to accept such self-serving statements when . . .

[the] Officers killed the only other potential witness”); see also id. (specifying that “[t]he

video footage neither negates nor supports the . . . Officers’ testimony” that “Ocran made

any furtive movements” while fleeing from the Officers). Accordingly, as discussed supra

Part III.A., this contention fails to the extent it is merely a repackaged attempt to challenge

the district court’s determination that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether Ocran made any “furtive movements” while fleeing from the Officers. 9

9 The central premise of our dissenting colleague’s position is that the district court did not deem there to be genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Ocran made any “furtive movements” while fleeing from the Officers. But the dissent’s view is belied by the court’s conclusion that it could not resolve — at the summary judgment stage — whether Ocran “reached into his waistband” or “made any furtive movements” while fleeing from the Officers. See Summary Judgment Ruling 29 n.6. Simply put, those material facts are readily in dispute and should be decided by the jury, not an appeals court.

27 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 28 of 40

Next, the Officers posit that “even assuming arguendo that the [district court]

properly defined the constitutional right at issue, it erred in finding that any such right was

clearly established.” See Br. of Appellants 46. 10 The Officers assail the Summary

Judgment Ruling’s reliance on our Court’s decision in Henry v. Purnell, claiming that

precedent “cannot stand for this proposition as it was undisputed that the fleeing suspect in

that case was unarmed.” Id. According to the Officers, Henry did not touch on the precise

situation presented in this Fourth Amendment excessive force case — that is, “whether

individuals have a right to be free from deadly force when armed and fleeing.” Id. at 47.

With respect to this purely legal argument, we possess jurisdiction. See Winfield,

106 F.3d at 53 (explaining that court of appeals may properly exercise jurisdiction “over a

claim that there was no violation of clearly established law accepting the facts as the district

court viewed them”). But the argument is simply without merit under our 2011 decision

in Henry, as well as the Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S.

1 (1985). As we explained in Henry, “[a] police officer who shoots a fleeing suspect

without probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or

10 It is notable that, in the underlying summary judgment proceedings, the Officers advised the district court that there was “no need . . . to weigh the second prong of the [qualified immunity] framework.” See Cooper v. Doyle, No. 8:22-cv-00052, at 20 (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2023), ECF No. 44-1. Arguably, the Officers thereby invited the alleged error of which they now complain. See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 124 F.3d 607, 617 (4th Cir. 1997) (“The ‘invited error’ doctrine recognizes that a court cannot be asked by counsel to take a step in a case and later be convicted of error, because it has complied with such request.”). Putting any alleged invited error to the side, however, we are readily satisfied that, applying a de novo standard of review, the Officers’ appellate contentions regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity standard lack merit.

28 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 29 of 40

serious physical injury to the officer or others violates that suspect’s Fourth Amendment

rights.” See 652 F.3d at 254 (citation modified). Similarly, in Garner, the Supreme Court

recognized that “shooting nondangerous fleeing suspects is [not] so vital as to outweigh

the suspect’s interest in his own life.” See 471 U.S. at 11. The Garner Court elaborated:

[T]he use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. However, where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

See 471 U.S. at 11 (citation modified).

Pursuant to Garner and Henry, Ocran had a clearly established Fourth Amendment

right to be free from deadly force while fleeing from the Officers and without otherwise

posing a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the Officers or others.

Indeed, that Ocran was armed while fleeing from the Officers does not change the analysis,

nor does it render Garner or Henry inapposite. For starters, our Court’s longstanding

precedent is that simply being armed is not grounds for law enforcement to employ deadly

force, unless that person makes some sort of furtive or other threatening movement with

the weapon. As Judge Agee recently explained in Knibbs v. Momphard,

the failure to obey commands by a person in possession of . . . a weapon only justifies the use of deadly force if that person makes some sort of furtive or other threatening movement with the weapon, thereby signaling to the officer that the suspect intends to use it in a way that imminently threatens the safety of the officer or another person.

29 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 30 of 40

See 30 F.4th 200, 225 (4th Cir. 2022) (summarizing Hensley ex rel. North Carolina v. Price,

876 F.3d 573 (4th Cir. 2017); Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2013); Anderson

v. Russell, 247 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2001); Sigman v. Town of Chapel Hill, 161 F.3d 782 (4th

Cir. 1998); Elliott v. Leavitt, 99 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 1996); McLenagan v. Karnes, 27 F.3d

1002 (4th Cir. 1994); and Slattery v. Rizzo, 939 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1991)). Although Ocran

was armed at the time he was fleeing from the Officers, on the undisputed facts, Ocran did

not make any “furtive or . . . threatening movement with the weapon.” Id. 11

Moreover, if we accept the Officers’ contention that Ocran being armed somehow

renders Henry inapposite — and leads to Ocran being viewed as “threatening” to the

Officers — we would create inconsistency within our own precedent. Indeed, it would be

entirely inconsistent to define the word “threatening” differently here than in Hensley

(2017), Cooper (2013), Anderson (2001), Sigman (1998), Elliott (1996), McLenagan

(1994), and Slattery (1991). Again, those seven cases stand for the proposition that

presence of “a weapon only justifies the use of deadly force if that person makes some sort

of furtive or other threatening movement with the weapon.” See Knibbs, 30 F.4th at 225.

* * *

11 We observe that it matters not that the CI had related to Corporal Dakkouni in text messages that Ocran would “shoot it out” if confronted by the police. See supra at 5 (quoting J.A. 442). In this collateral order appeal, however, the undisputed evidence is that Ocran was endeavoring to get away from the Officers, not confront them.

30 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 31 of 40

It is well-established that public officials are entitled only to “fair notice” — not a

case with identical facts — to understand whether their conduct violates an individual’s

clearly established constitutional right. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004).

And as explained above, even if “there is no case directly on point factually to inform our

[clearly established] analysis,” a constitutional right can be clearly established if “core

constitutional principles set forth in numerous cases lead us to the conclusion that [a

plaintiff’s] substantive due process right was clearly established” at the time of the

constitutional violation. See Dean, 976 F.3d at 418. With that in mind, we conclude that

Ocran’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from deadly force was clearly established in

January 2021 when the Officers shot Ocran in the back multiple times while he was fleeing

and otherwise posing no threat to the defendant Officers or anyone else.

IV.

Pursuant to the foregoing, we dismiss the Officers’ collateral order appeal from the

Summary Judgment Ruling and the Reconsideration Ruling, to the extent the Officers seek

to improperly challenge the district court’s determinations that genuine disputes of material

fact exist on this summary judgment record. Otherwise, we affirm the court’s ruling that,

based upon the undisputed facts, the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity with

respect to the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Finally, we remand for

such other and further proceedings as may be appropriate, including a jury trial.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED

31 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 32 of 40

RUSHING, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I agree with the majority that we lack collateral order jurisdiction to review the

Officers’ contention that the district court erred in finding certain material facts disputed.

But we do have jurisdiction to resolve the Officers’ argument that, even viewing the two

material factual disputes the district court identified in the light most favorable to the

Plaintiff, the Officers did not violate Ocran’s clearly established rights. Our precedents

draw a bright line, making clear that an armed person’s failure to obey police commands

justifies deadly force if the person makes a threatening movement signaling to the officer

that the person intends to use the weapon in a way that imminently threatens the safety of

the officer or another person. Knibbs v. Momphard, 30 F.4th 200, 225 (4th Cir. 2022).

Those precedents entitle the Officers to qualified immunity here.

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson v.

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818

(1982)). Accordingly, law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless

(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their

conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S.

48, 62–63 (2018) (quoting Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)). “‘Clearly

established’ means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was ‘sufficiently clear

that every reasonable official would understand what he is doing’ is unlawful.” Id. at 63

(quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)). While “a case directly on point”

32 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 33 of 40

is not necessary for a right to be clearly established, “existing precedent” must have placed

the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct “beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73,

79 (2017) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). “It is not enough that the rule

is suggested by then-existing precedent.” Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63. Rather, “[t]he precedent

must be clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the

particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.” Id. “This demanding standard protects ‘all but

the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” Id. (quoting Malley v.

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).

The “clearly established” standard also requires that the contours of the legal rule

be “so well defined” as to “clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular

circumstances before him.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “This requires a high

degree of specificity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has

“repeatedly stressed that courts must not define clearly established law at a high level of

generality, since doing so avoids the crucial question whether the official acted reasonably

in the particular circumstances that he or she faced.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly

established.” Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (per curiam) (internal quotation

marks omitted). “This inquiry must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the

case, not as a broad general proposition.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Specificity is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context.” Kisela v.

Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 104 (2018) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Regarding “[u]se of excessive force” in particular, the Supreme Court has explained that

33 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 34 of 40

“‘the result depends very much on the facts of each case,’ and thus police officers are

entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent ‘squarely governs’ the specific

facts at issue.” Id. (quoting Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 13). For example, Tennessee v. Garner

established the general principles that “[a] police officer may not seize an unarmed,

nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead” but “[w]here the officer has probable cause

to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or

to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”

471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the general rules set

forth in ‘Garner . . . do not by themselves create clearly established law outside an obvious

case.’” Kisela, 584 U.S. at 105 (quoting White, 580 U.S. at 80); see also Brosseau v.

Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004) (per curiam).

Turning to this case, the district court relied exclusively, and erroneously, on Henry

v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), to articulate the clearly established law

applicable to the Officers’ conduct. The district court reasoned that Henry “had clearly

established the right to be free from deadly force when armed, fleeing, and

nonthreatening.” Cooper v. Doyle, No. DKC 22-0052, 2024 WL 3568564, at *14 (D. Md.

July 29, 2024). That was incorrect for two reasons. First, the suspect in Henry was not

armed or even suspected to be armed. See Henry, 652 F.3d at 527 (“Officer Robert Purnell

shot Frederick Henry, an unarmed man . . . .”); id. at 532 (“[A] reasonable officer in these

circumstances would have had no grounds for believing Henry was armed or dangerous.”);

id. at 532 n.9 (“Purnell had no reason to believe, or even suspect, that Henry was armed.”);

see also Amisi v. Brooks, 93 F.4th 659, 667 (4th Cir. 2024) (describing Henry). The

34 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 35 of 40

difference between an armed suspect and an unarmed one is significant. For that reason

alone, Henry does not “‘squarely govern[]’ the specific facts at issue” here. Kisela, 584

U.S. at 104 (quoting Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 13).

Second, the district court was wrong to define the clearly established right as a right

to be free from deadly force when “nonthreatening.” A suspect’s status as

“nonthreatening” does not describe “‘particular conduct’”—it is a conclusion drawn from

various facts. Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12 (quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742). The

unlawfulness of the Officers’ conduct “‘does not follow immediately from’” the rule that

an officer cannot use deadly force against a nonthreatening suspect, because one must first

assess Ocran’s particular conduct to determine whether it qualifies as nonthreatening.

Wesby, 583 U.S. at 64 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987)). Such

a “rule is too general.” Id.

The majority’s rule is no better. Relying on Henry and Garner, the majority

identifies a clearly established right “to be free from deadly force while fleeing from the

Officers and without otherwise posing a significant threat of death or serious physical

injury to the Officers or others.” Maj. Op. 29. The Supreme Court has twice “considered—

and rejected—almost that exact formulation of the qualified immunity question” as too

general. Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12. In Mullenix, the Court rejected the formulation that it

was clearly established “that a police officer may not use deadly force against a fleeing

felon who does not pose a sufficient threat of harm to the officer or others.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted). In Brosseau, the Court rejected the formulation that it was

clearly established that “‘deadly force is only permissible where the officer has probable

35 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 36 of 40

cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer

or to others.’” Id. (quoting Haugen v. Brosseau, 339 F.3d 857, 873 (9th Cir. 2003), rev’d,

543 U.S. 194). In both cases, the Supreme Court summarily reversed, holding that “use of

Garner’s ‘general’ test for excessive force was ‘mistaken.’” Id. at 13 (quoting Brosseau,

543 U.S. at 199); see id. at 16, 19. Likewise here, the majority recites Garner’s test, but

that test is “cast at [too] high [a] level of generality” to “clearly establish the answer” in

this case. Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 199 (internal quotation marks omitted).

To define the right at issue with the requisite level of specificity, we must first

identify “the specific facts” confronting the Officers when they used deadly force. Kisela,

584 U.S. at 104. On appeal from the denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment,

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.” Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir. 2020)

(internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

According to the district court, the “Plaintiff accepts Defendants’ version of the

facts, with two exceptions.” Cooper, 2024 WL 3568564, at *5. The Plaintiff asserted, and

the district court found, two disputed material facts: “(1) [whether] Mr. Ocran pointed a

firearm at Defendant Officers, and (2) [whether] Mr. Ocran discharged a firearm at

Defendant Officers.” Id.; see id. at *13 (“Because genuine disputes of material fact remain

as to whether Mr. Ocran pointed and fired his firearm, Defendants are not entitled to

summary judgment . . . .”). At this stage, we accept the Plaintiff’s version of the facts: that

Ocran did not point his gun at the Officers or fire it and that the Officers’ version of events

is otherwise correct.

36 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 37 of 40

Accordingly, the question for qualified immunity is whether it was clearly

established in January 2021 that an officer may not use deadly force against a person who,

although prohibited from possessing a firearm, nevertheless is armed with a gun on his

person, who has told an informant (who then told police) that he is “not going back to jail

he will shoot it out,” and who runs from police after they announce their presence, looks

back and angles his body toward pursuing officers several times, disobeys their commands

to stop running and stop reaching for his waistband, and instead pulls the gun from his

waistband. Id. at *1; see id. at *1–4. The answer is no. Neither the majority, the district

court, nor the parties identify any precedent clearly establishing such a right or, frankly,

anything close to it.

The majority cites Knibbs, a case in which the decedent “possesse[d] a firearm

inside his own home while investigating a nocturnal disturbance” and “ignore[d]

commands [from outside the home] to drop the weapon” but did “not aim the weapon at

the officer or otherwise threaten him” and could not “visually verify that” the officer was

in fact law enforcement. 30 F.4th at 223. Obviously, Knibbs’s holding is worlds apart

from the facts of this case. But Knibbs did summarize our precedent relevant to that

circumstance as “clearly establish[ing] that the failure to obey [police] commands by a

person in possession of, or suspected to be in possession of, a weapon only justifies the use

of deadly force if that person makes some sort of furtive or other threatening movement

with the weapon, thereby signaling to the officer that the suspect intends to use it in a way

that imminently threatens the safety of the officer or another person.” Id. at 225.

37 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 38 of 40

Applying even that standard, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Ocran

knew that the Officers were police, disobeyed their commands to stop running and stop

reaching in his waistband, was fleeing and looking back at the Officers, and at some point

reached in his waistband for a gun and took it out, which the Officers saw. We have

mountains of precedent saying that officers are entitled to immunity when they shoot under

such circumstances. See, e.g., Benton v. Layton, 139 F.4th 281, 286–287, 290–291 (4th

Cir. 2025) (holding officers were entitled to qualified immunity for shooting suspect after

they ordered the suspect to show his hands but he failed to do so, instead making

movements inside the car which were obscured from the officers); Slattery v. Rizzo, 939

F.2d 213, 215–217 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding officer was entitled to qualified immunity for

shooting suspect after he twice ordered the suspect to put his hands up, but the suspect

ignored those commands, instead reaching down to an area out of the officer’s sight and

grabbing an object that turned out to be a beer bottle); Anderson v. Russell, 247 F.3d 125,

128, 131–132 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable during

his investigation of a man thought to be armed after the officer ordered the man to get down

on his knees and put his hands up, but the man began reaching in his back left pocket for

what turned out to be a Walkman radio); cf. Knibbs, 30 F.4th at 222 (“[A]n officer does

not have to wait until a gun is pointed at the officer before the officer is entitled to take

action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The majority rejects this conclusion by creating a finding the district court never

made. The majority says the district court “determin[ed] that a reasonable jury could

conclude . . . that Ocran never ‘reached into his waistband’” or “made any furtive

38 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 39 of 40

movement while fleeing from the Officers.” Maj. Op. 24, 27 (quoting Cooper, 2024 WL

3568564, at *11 n.6). But the district court did not make that finding. In the single

reference to furtive movement in the district court’s opinion, the court noted the Officers’

testimony about Ocran reaching into his waistband and said it “must be careful” not to

accept self-serving testimony when the victim is dead. Cooper, 2024 WL 3568564, at *11

n.6. That is demonstrably not a determination that a reasonable jury could find Ocran made

no furtive movements. Notably, the court identified no evidence that would support a

finding contrary to the Officers’ testimony, as one would expect when a court declares a

fact to be genuinely disputed. *

By contrast, the district court was crystal clear in identifying the only two disputed

material facts that prevented summary judgment here: “whether[] (1) Mr. Ocran pointed a

firearm at Defendant Officers, and (2) Mr. Ocran discharged a firearm at Defendant

Officers.” Id. at *5; see also id. at *10 (“The parties dispute whether Mr. Ocran threatened

Defendant Officers with his firearm by pointing it and shooting.”); id. at *12 (“[A]

reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Ocran never fired a shot. A reasonable jury could

also conclude that Mr. Ocran never pointed a handgun at Defendant Officers.”); id. at *13

(“[A] reasonable jury could conclude . . . that Mr. Ocran never turned around to point a

gun at Defendant Officers” and “that Mr. Ocran never fired a shot.”); id. (“Because genuine

* Moreover, the court did not call into question other, independent evidence that Ocran at some point retrieved his gun. See, e.g., id. at *4 (“Officer Doyle saw a firearm in Mr. Ocran’s hand.”); id. at *5 (a loaded handgun with one round in the chamber “was recovered from the area near Mr. Ocran’s right hand”); id. at *6 (gunshot residue was found on Ocran’s hand and the cuff and sleeve of his coat).

39 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2131 Doc: 89 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 40 of 40

disputes of material fact remain as to whether Mr. Ocran pointed and fired his firearm,

Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment . . . .”); id. at *15 (“Because a jury could

conclude that Mr. Ocran never pointed a firearm at Defendant Officers, there is a genuine

dispute as to whether Defendant Officers acted reasonably . . . .”); id. at *19 (“Here, as

discussed, genuine disputes of material fact remain as to whether Mr. Ocran pointed or

fired a firearm at Defendant Officers.”). We have acknowledged that parsing a district

court’s “determinations regarding factual disputes” can be “complicated” in some cases on

appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 234 (4th Cir.

2008). But the district court here repeatedly emphasized the two disputed facts that it

believed prevented qualified immunity. The majority errs by adding to the district court’s

findings and then using its newly created factual disputes to deny the Officers the immunity

to which they are entitled.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

40