Geoffrey Shegog v. Timothy Schiele

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 25, 2025
Docket24-3129
StatusUnpublished

This text of Geoffrey Shegog v. Timothy Schiele (Geoffrey Shegog v. Timothy Schiele) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Geoffrey Shegog v. Timothy Schiele, (8th Cir. 2025).

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Submitted: September 22, 2025 Filed: September 25, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________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

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ortiz v. Jordan
131 S. Ct. 884 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Taylor v. Carter
960 F.2d 763 (Eighth Circuit, 1992)
Krein v. Norris
250 F.3d 1184 (Eighth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Geoffrey Shegog v. Timothy Schiele, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geoffrey-shegog-v-timothy-schiele-ca8-2025.