Geoffrey Shegog v. Timothy Schiele

Opinion

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Submitted: September 22, 2025 Filed: September 25, 2025 [Unpublished]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.

____________

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.

______________________________

1 The 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).