Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge AGEE wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior Judge SILER joined. Judge GREGORY wrote a dissenting opinion.
OPINION
AGEE, Circuit Judge:
Robert Purnell, a deputy sheriff in Somerset County, Maryland, attempted to execute a warrant for Frederick Henry’s arrest. Henry fled on foot and Deputy Purnell gave chase, mistakenly drawing his firearm, instead of his taser, and shooting Henry in the elbow. As a result of this incident, Henry filed a § 1983 suit against Deputy Purnell in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting that Purnell used excessive force in effecting his arrest. The district court ultimately concluded that Deputy Purnell’s mistake was reasonable and granted his motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court, and remand with instructions.
I.
We begin by summarizing the factual background, viewed in the light most favorable to Henry, as this is the appropriate standard in reviewing the facts upon an award of summary judgment. See George & Co. LLC v. Imagination Entm’t Ltd., 575 F.3d 383, 392 (4th Cir.2009). In 2003, the Circuit Court for Somerset County, Maryland ordered Henry either to pay child support or report to jail on a specified date. When Henry failed to comply with the court’s order, the Somerset County state’s attorney charged him with second degree escape and obtained a warrant for his arrest.1 Deputy Purnell was tasked with executing Henry’s arrest warrant.
Purnell went to Henry’s last known address and encountered an unidentified male sitting on the steps of a nearby trailer. The unidentified male indicated that he was a friend of the family who was helping to mow the grass and that Henry [327]*327was not present. The man explained to Deputy Purnell that Henry lived “somewhere on Hampton Avenue in Princess Anne” and that he was working in Ocean City for a company called American Paving. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 220.
Purnell asked the man to tell Henry that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest and that if Henry would contact him, he “would try to help him out.” Id. at 221. Purnell also wrote his name and telephone number on a piece of paper, which he asked the man to give to Henry. The unidentified male stated that he would give the paper to Henry’s wife, who was inside the trailer. The man entered the trailer and then returned, stating that he had given the note to Henry’s wife. Although Deputy Purnell suspected the man was Henry, he thanked the man and left.
Deputy Purnell subsequently drove to the local office of American Paving to inquire about Henry’s employment. He was informed that Henry no longer worked for American Paving, but that the company’s business records contained a personnel photograph. From this photograph, Pur-nell was able to determine that the unidentified male at the trailer was, in fact, Henry.
Upon returning to Henry’s residence, Deputy Purnell knocked on the trailer door and spoke to Henry’s wife. Mrs. Henry had not received the note Purnell had left earlier that day, but she allowed him to enter the home to search for Mr. Henry, who was not present. She also informed Deputy Purnell that her husband’s employer drove a white truck and lived in Princess Anne, Maryland. The following day Purnell received a phone message from Mrs. Henry indicating that she had given Mr. Henry his message and that Mr. Henry had traveled to Baltimore to raise money for bail.
Several days later, on October 23, 2003, Deputy Purnell was parked in his patrol car when he observed a white truck with three male occupants heading in the direction of Henry’s trailer. As the truck passed, the man seated next to the truck’s passenger window turned his head away from Deputy Purnell. His suspicions aroused, Purnell drove to Henry’s residence and found the white truck parked in the driveway.
Deputy Purnell parked his patrol car behind the truck, exited his vehicle, and determined that all three men were still in the truck. He approached the driver’s side of the vehicle and asked each man if he was Frederick Henry. Each man initially said no. When Purnell asked the same question a second time, however, Henry admitted his identity. At this point, Henry exited the truck and moved along with Deputy Purnell to the rear of the truck. Henry then ran in the direction of his residence with Purnell giving chase. WTiile running in pursuit of Henry and keeping his eye on “the target,” ie., Henry, Deputy Purnell drew what he believed was his taser. Id. at 269. After three to five seconds, Purnell discharged what was, in fact, his firearm, striking Henry in the elbow.2
Only when Purnell heard the distinctive “pop” of the firearm did he realized his mistake. Id. at 272. Deputy Purnell told Henry that he “was sorry” for the shooting and that he had “pulled the wrong weapon.” Id. at 273. He also contacted the dispatcher to obtain medical assistance for Henry and allowed one of Henry’s companions to retrieve ice and a towel from [328]*328Henry’s residence. Once another officer arrived on the scene, Deputy Purnell took a pressure bandage from his vehicle and applied it to Henry’s arm. An ambulance subsequently transported Henry for medical treatment.
II.
We now turn to this case’s lengthy procedural history. Henry filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on March 24, 2004, alleging that Purnell violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizures effectuated by excessive force. In response, Deputy Purnell filed a motion requesting that the district court dismiss Henry’s complaint or grant summary judgment in his favor. Purnell argued that he had not “seized” Henry and, in the alternative, that he was entitled to qualified immunity. After concluding that disputed issues of material fact did not permit judgment as a matter of law, the district court denied Purnell’s motion.
Upon appeal to this Court, Purnell argued the record did not support the district court’s conclusion that a factual dispute precluded it from granting judgment as a matter of law and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Because we lacked jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal on qualified immunity based on “the district court’s factual findings,” we dismissed the appeal. Henry v. Purnell, 119 Fed.Appx. 441, 443 (4th Cir.2005) (unpublished).
Henry subsequently was granted permission from the district court to amend his complaint to add a claim for excessive force predicated on the Maryland Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. The parties also engaged in discovery and entered into an evidentiary stipulation that Deputy Purnell “intended to unholster and discharge his Taser M26 which was mounted in a thigh holster below his service weapon, a Glock .40 caliber handgun. Instead, he unholstered and fired his service weapon, believing that it was his Taser M26.” J.A. at 30.
Thereafter, Deputy Purnell filed a second motion for summary judgment in which he argued that Henry had not been “seized” and that the parties’ stipulation that the shooting was an unintentional mistake disposed of Henry’s Fourth Amendment claim. Henry opposed the motion on three grounds, positing that the shooting did constitute a seizure, that outstanding issues of material fact required resolution by a jury, and that Purnell was not entitled to qualified immunity.3 Henry also requested the district court compel Purnell to disclose information relating to his taser and firearm training and departmental policy regarding the use of force. Based on its conclusions that (1) Deputy Purnell had “seized” Henry within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and (2) several outstanding factual issues precluded an award of qualified immunity, the district court denied Purnell’s motion for summary judgment and granted Henry’s motion to compel. See Henry v. Purnell, 428 F.Supp.2d 393, 395-98 (D.Md.2006).
Purnell appealed the district court’s order and contended that the court erred in concluding that he “seized” Henry and in failing to accord him qualified immunity. [329]*329We affirmed the district court’s determination that Purnell’s shooting of Henry resulted in a Fourth Amendment “seizure.” Henry v. Purnell, 501 F.3d 374, 381-82 (4th Cir.2007). But we questioned whether the district court applied the appropriate burden of proof at the dual stages of the qualified immunity analysis.4 See id. at 383-84. Accordingly, we remanded the case for the district court to “reassess the issue of whether a constitutional violation occurred in light of the proper burden of proof and the discovery materials that it ordered Purnell to produce.” Id. at 384. If Henry succeeded in “establishing that the seizure in this case was unreasonable (ie., that Purnell’s mistake in using the Glock rather than the [t]aser was unreasonable),” we indicated that Purnell would “have the opportunity to demonstrate his entitlement to qualified immunity.” Id.
On remand, Henry received the requested discovery relating to Purnell’s weapons training and the use of force policy. Deputy Purnell then filed his third motion for summary judgment, which emphasized that he had “no field training with, or field use of, the [tjaser prior to the occurrence.” J.A. at 115. With this factor in mind, Purnell maintained that his mistaken use of the firearm was reasonable, particularly as the holsters issued by the sheriffs department placed both the firearm and the taser on the right side of his body.5
Henry opposed the motion by arguing that material facts remained in dispute and that he had successfully established a violation of the Fourth Amendment. On the merits, Henry claimed that Deputy Pur-nell’s mistake was unreasonable because he did not “comply with multiple police department regulations,” resulting in a “reckless failure to take steps to avoid the impermissible use of excessive force.” J.A. at 520-21. Qualified immunity, in Henry’s view, was also improper because it was clearly established that “reckless conduct on the part of a police officer that directly leads to an accidental or unintentional shooting violates the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Id. at 526. In any case, Henry maintained that his state-law claim should survive a summary judgment motion because statutory immunity under Maryland law would apply only if a jury determined that Purnell’s conduct was not “grossly negligent and/or reckless.” Id. at 529.
The district court agreed with Purnell on the issue of reasonableness and granted his motion for summary judgment. See Henry v. Purnell, 559 F.Supp.2d 648, 653 (D.Md.2008). In reaching that conclusion, the district court framed its analysis based on its understanding of the remand order from this Court:
It is apparent from the opinion in Purnell II that even when, in the Fourth Circuit’s view, the underlying facts of the Henry/Purnell incident, viewed most favorably to Henry, do not themselves give rise to an inference that Purnell’s use of his Glock was unreasonable. Otherwise, the court would have ruled (as did I) that regardless of additional facts that might be learned from discovery on the training issues, genuine issues of material fact existed as to the reasonableness question. [330]*330Therefore, I will focus my analysis here upon whether any of the facts (and reasonable inferences therefrom) that have been established during the course of the additional discovery would give rise to a finding of unreasonableness.
Id. at 652.
The court answered this last query in the negative after its review of the additional discovery materials indicated “the training that Purnell received concerning the use of a [t]aser was quite minimal.” Id. In ruling in Deputy Purnell’s favor, the district court rejected Henry’s assertion that there were factual issues related to Purnell’s failure to comply with his training, which precluded the court from granting judgment as a matter of law. The court indicated, for example, that it was “not reasonably inferable from the record that Henry would have complied with” a verbal warning or command to stop or be tased. Id. at 652 n. 3. It also dismissed as “speculative” Henry’s claim that had the visible laser sight been used, a reasonable officer would have known that he had drawn his gun and not his taser. Id. Furthermore, the court deemed reasonable Deputy Purnell’s failure to note the lack of a thumb safety mechanism on his Glock, but present on his taser, because Purnell had developed an “instinctive thumb motion” while previously using a handgun that incorporated a similar device. Id.
Because Maryland courts construe Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights “in pari materia with the Fourth Amendment,” Jones v. State, 407 Md. 33, 962 A.2d 393, 400 n. 2 (2008), the district court’s determination that Henry failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation disposed of both his federal and state law claims. The district court, therefore, did not consider whether Deputy Purnell was entitled to immunity under federal or state law. See Henry, 559 F.Supp.2d at 649 n. 1.
Henry timely appealed the district court’s judgment and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
III.
Whether a party is entitled to summary judgment is a question of law we review de novo using the same standard applied by the district court. See Canal Ins. Co. v. Distribution Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 488, 491 (4th Cir.2003); Dixon v. Edwards, 290 F.3d 699, 710 (4th Cir.2002). Summary judgment is appropriate only if taking the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “no material facts are disputed and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ausherman v. Bank of Am. Corp., 352 F.3d 896, 899 (4th Cir.2003). Under this standard, courts in qualified immunity cases usually adopt “the plaintiffs version of the facts.” Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 230 (4th Cir.2008) (quotation omitted).
IV.
What is now before us is Henry’s challenge to the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Deputy Purnell. Henry contends that the district court erred on two grounds. First, he contends the district court erred in its Fourth Amendment analysis by focusing only on the evidence related to Deputy Purnell’s training, rather than on the totality of the circumstances. See Opening Brief at 17. Second, Henry maintains the district court erred in resolving disputed factual issues in favor of Purnell and in failing to view the facts and related inferences in the light most favorable to him. See id. at 38-40.
[331]*331Henry recognizes, however, that even if summary judgment should not have been granted on his Fourth Amendment claim, Purnell may still claim entitlement to qualified immunity. Consequently, he also argues that Deputy Purnell violated clearly established law in using “deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed, and non-dangerous suspect.” Id. at 42. And even if qualified immunity invalidates his federal claim, Henry posits that his state law claim should survive summary judgment because “[wjhether an officer’s actions are grossly negligent, and therefore unprotected by statutory immunity, is generally” a question reserved for the jury. Id. at 47.
Deputy Purnell responds that the short time period in which he had to act and his unfamiliarity with the gun and taser rendered his mistaken use of the firearm objectively reasonable. See Response Brief at 19. Arguing that our prior decision in this case “was the first to hold that the Fourth Amendment was even implicated in the event of a mistaken application of deadly force through weapon confusion,” Purnell further asserts his entitlement to qualified immunity. Id. at 20. He also seeks the protection of state statutory immunity based on the absence of “evidence in [the] record of gross negligence.” Id.
We consider these arguments in turn.
A.
The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures encompasses the right to be free of “seizures effectuated by excessive force.” Schultz v. Braga, 455 F.3d 470, 476 (4th Cir.2006). Whether a degree of force is reasonable is measured “by a standard of objective reasonableness.” Clem v. Corbeau, 284 F.3d 543, 550 (4th Cir.2002). Courts accordingly inquire “whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). With this foundation in mind, we first consider Henry’s argument that the district court erred in focusing its Fourth Amendment analysis on the additional discovery related to Deputy Purnell’s weapons training.
Properly applying the test of objective reasonableness requires courts to give “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Id. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865. The reasonableness of an officer’s use of force is a fact-bound question, which turns on the “totality of the circumstances.” Young v. Prince George’s County, 355 F.3d 751, 757 (4th Cir.2004). Determining “what a ‘reasonable officer on the scene’ would have done” thus depends on a careful weighing of all of the relevant facts. Sigman v. Town of Chapel Hill, 161 F.3d 782, 787 (4th Cir.1998) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865). In other words, courts determining whether an application of force is objectively reasonable must consider “ ‘the totality of the circumstances,’ ” which includes (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others, and (3) whether the suspect was attempting to resist or evade arrest. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 9, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)). With all of the relevant circumstances before it, a court may then properly balance an individual’s Fourth Amendment interests and the Government’s countervailing law enforcement concerns. See id.
Here, the district court “focusfed]” its Fourth Amendment analysis on whether “any of the facts ... established during the course of the additional discovery [gave] rise to a finding of unreasonable[332]*332ness.” Henry, 559 F.Supp.2d at 652. In confining its Fourth Amendment analysis to this limited factual basis, we conclude the district court erred.
Our prior opinion remanded this case to afford Henry “the opportunity to present all potentially relevant evidence” before the district court decided whether he “met his burden of establishing that [his] seizure ... was unreasonable.” Henry, 501 F.3d at 384. Apart from our conclusion that Deputy Purnell “seized” Henry within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, we rendered “no opinion on the ultimate merits of the case” and did not circumscribe the full range of evidence which a review of the totality of the circumstances would require. Id. The district court, therefore, should not have assumed that “the underlying facts of the Henry/Purnell incident” were less relevant to its determination of the reasonableness of Purnell’s mistaken use of the firearm than “the additional discovery” related to Purnell’s, weapons training. Henry, 559 F.Supp.2d at 652.
The district court thus erred in limiting the scope of its Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis to the adequacy of Deputy Purnell’s weapons training, instead of examining the totality of the, circumstances.
B.
Notwithstanding the district court’s error as to the totality-of-the-eircumstances standard used in evaluating the objective reasonableness of an officer’s conduct, the judgment may still be affirmed if qualified immunity applies. The essential question thus becomes whether Purnell is entitled to qualified immunity, a doctrine which shields government actors from liability if they establish either that (1) the plaintiffs allegations fail to make out a violation of a constitutional right, or (2) the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. See Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815-16, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). In this case, Henry’s federal and state law claims would both be invalidated if, as a matter of law, Purnell’s mistaken use of his firearm was objectively reasonable and therefore no constitutional right of Henry’s was violated. See Melgar ex rel. Melgar v. Greene, 593 F.3d 348, 360 (4th Cir.2010) (noting that Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights “is interpreted in pari matena with the Fourth Amendment”).
However, if an objective reasonableness determination could not be made due to the existence of outstanding material issues of fact, Purnell may still prevail on the federal claim if the constitutional right that forms the basis for Henry’s suit was not clearly established at the time of the shooting. As explained below, our analysis of the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry may not dispose of Henry’s state law claim. We therefore exercise our discretion to employ the traditional, two-step qualified immunity procedure laid down in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) to determine if Henry’s federal and state claims are resolved by an analysis of his rights under the Fourth Amendment.6 See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818.
[333]*333Under Saucier, we first consider whether Henry’s allegations make out the violation of a constitutional right, see 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, a question on which Henry bears the burden of proof. See Henry, 501 F.3d at 377. The only constitutional right at issue here is the Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizures effectuated by excessive force. Establishing a violation of that right requires Henry to demonstrate that “the seizure in this case was unreasonable (i.e., that Purnell’s mistake in using the Glock rather than the [t]aser was unreasonable).” Id. at 384; see also Milstead v. Kibler, 243 F.3d 157, 164-65 (4th Cir.2001), abrogated on other grounds by Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818. This “reasonableness” inquiry is undertaken “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” bereft of “the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”7 Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865.
Qualified immunity does not “override the ordinary rules applicable to summary judgment proceedings,” Willingham v. Crooke, 412 F.3d 553, 559 (4th Cir.2005), nor does it “give special substantive favor to the defense.” Wilson v. Kittoe, 337 F.3d 392, 397 (4th Cir.2003) (quotation omitted). Hence, our longstanding instruction that courts “reserve! ] for trial” genuine issues of material fact relating to an “officer’s conduct or its reasonableness under the circumstances.” Pritchett v. Alford, 973 F.2d 307, 313 (4th Cir.1992). For summary judgment to be appropriate, there must be “no genuine issues of material fact” and the “undisputed facts” must establish that “the defendant ... is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”8 Id.
The record reflects, however, that unresolved questions of material fact render a merits resolution of Henry’s excessive force claim inappropriate for summary judgment, at least as to the issue of objective reasonableness. See Melgar, 593 F.3d at 356. The district court summarily dismissed Henry’s arguments that a reasonable officer would have issued a warning before attempting to fire his taser, and that the taser’s visible laser sight and thumb lock would have caused a reasonable officer to be aware that he had mistakenly drawn his firearm instead. See Henry, 559 F.Supp.2d at 652 n. 3. We hold that the district court’s reasoning in this regard was speculative; a jury could legiti[334]*334mately view each of these factors differently, particularly after considering the testimony of an expert witness. See, e.g., Wellington v. Daniels, 717 F.2d 932, 934 (4th Cir.1983) (recounting the testimony of “an expert on police procedure and equipment”). At this stage of the proceeding, there remain material factual issues in dispute on the failure to warn, to utilize the laser sight, and to distinguish the different safety locks, all of which are relevant to a decision on the objective reasonableness of the seizure. The district court’s determination that Deputy Purnell’s conduct was reasonable as a matter of law was thus in error.
To be clear, we do not decide the merits of Henry’s claim for excessive force (i.e., whether Purnell’s mistaken use of his firearm was reasonable). See Henry, 501 F.3d at 384. We merely recognize that “the issue before us on summary judgment is fairly narrow.” Schultz, 455 F.3d at 479. Because material factual issues exist as to the reasonableness of Deputy Pur-nell’s actions, summary judgment based on that issue should not have been granted. See Clark v. Alexander, 85 F.3d 146, 150 (4th Cir.1996).
C.
Having determined that the first prong of the Saucier inquiry does not support the award of summary judgment to Purnell, we now turn to the second prong. In that regard, the Supreme Court has long emphasized that qualified immunity is designed “to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). Accordingly, the Court has “repeatedly ... stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 (quotation omitted). We thus strive to avoid “forcing] the parties to endure additional burdens of suit ... when the suit otherwise could be disposed of more readily.” Id. at 818 (quotation omitted).
Although “qualified immunity is an immunity from suit” designed to be resolved at the “earliest possible stage” of the case, id. at 815 (quotations omitted), the case at bar is now in its sixth year and on its third appeal to this Court, see Henry, 501 F.3d at 374; Henry, 119 Fed.Appx. at 441. The history of this case exemplifies the strong public policy justifications for resolving the question of qualified immunity at the earliest stage in the litigation. Moreover, both parties have asked that we resolve the qualified immunity issue now. Clearly, resolving this purely legal issue at this time “will best facilitate the fair and efficient disposition of’ the case.9 Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 821. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to determine whether a Fourth Amendment right, “in light of the specific context of the case,” was clearly established at the time of the shooting. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151; see, e.g., Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 250 (4th Cir.1999).
The qualified immunity test originally set out by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) has been expressed in a variety of ways. For example, the Court has inquired whether “[t]he contours of’ a plaintiffs asserted right were “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would un[335]*335derstand that what he is doing violates that right,” i.e., whether “in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness” of “an official action is ... apparent.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). The Court has also phrased “[t]he dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established [as] whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted,” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, or “whether a reasonable officer could have believed that [his actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information [he] possessed.” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999).
Regardless of which formulation is used, it is clear under Saucier that the purpose of the qualified immunity inquiry is “to ensure that before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful.”10 533 U.S. at 206, 121 S.Ct. 2151. This principle serves fundamental concerns of fairness: “Officers sued in a civil action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have the same right to fair notice as do defendants charged with ... criminal offense[s].... ” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S.Ct. 2508,153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002). “[T]he qualified immunity test is simply the adaptation of the fair warning standard to give officials (and, ultimately, governments) the same protection from civil liability and its consequences that individuals have traditionally possessed in the face of vague criminal statutes.” United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 270-71, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997).
“That is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.... ” Hope, 536 U.S. at 739, 122 S.Ct. 2508. A right may be clearly established “even in novel factual circumstances,” id. at 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508, “but [i]f the law [does] not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151. And rightly so, for the Supreme Court has made clear “that the Harlow standard ... gives ample room for mistaken judgments,” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 343, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), “protecting] ... all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Id. at 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092.
In particular, the principles laid out by the Supreme Court in Saucier guide the resolution of the case at bar. Saucier was also a case where the plaintiffs cause of action was based on a claim of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See 533 U.S. at 198-99, 121 S.Ct. 2151. The defendant police officer moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, but the district court denied the motion because material facts remained in dispute on the excessive force claim. See id. at 199, 121 S.Ct. 2151. The district court held “that in the Fourth Amendment context, the qualified immunity inquiry is the same as the inquiry made on the merits.” Id. (quotation and alteration omitted). The Ninth Circuit agreed, concluding “that qualified immunity is merely duplicative in an excessive force case, eliminating the need for the second step where a constitutional violation could [336]*336be found based on the allegations.” Id. at 203, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
While the concurring opinion in Saucier approved this methodology for establishing qualified immunity, see id. at 213-15, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in the judgment), the majority of the Supreme Court flatly rejected it: “This approach cannot be reconciled with Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).” Id. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy explained:
The approach the Court of Appeals adopted — to deny summary judgment any time a material issue of fact remains on the excessive force claim — could undermine the goal of qualified immunity to “avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 [102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396] (1982). If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. See Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 [106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271] (1986) (qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”).
Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151.11
Specifically, the Supreme Court rejected the argument advanced by the minority concurring opinion that “[o]nce it has been determined that an officer violated the Fourth Amendment by using ‘objectively unreasonable’ force as that term is explained in Graham v. Connor, there is simply no work for a qualified immunity inquiry to do.” Id. at 216-17, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in the judgment). To the contrary, the Supreme Court explicitly held that “[t]he inquiries for qualified immunity and excessive force remain distinct, even after Graham.” Id. at 204, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
Until such time as the Supreme Court changes the judicial framework of the qualified immunity defense, we are bound to follow its direction. And that direction after Saucier is clear: In the context of a claimed Fourth Amendment violation for the use of excessive force, when the objective reasonableness of the official’s actions cannot yet be determined, an analysis of the qualified immunity defense based on whether the law is “clearly established” is a separate and required judicial action.12
[337]*337The contours of that qualified immunity inquiry were laid out in Saucier.
This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition....
.... [W]e emphasized in Anderson “that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” 483 U.S. at 640 [107 S.Ct. 3034]. The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 [119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818] (1999) (“[A]s we explained in Anderson, the right allegedly violated must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established[.]”).
Id. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
In the case at bar, Henry and the dissent contend the appropriate level of inquiry is whether “a police officer who shoots a fleeing suspect without probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others violates that suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Dissent at 342 (quotation omitted); see also Opening Brief at 42. However, this is where their argument goes off track and is reminiscent of the concurring opinion in Saucier, which is not the controlling law.13
A reasonable police officer would know that shooting an unarmed suspect fleeing on a misdemeanor child support warrant, without more, would constitute use of excessive force contrary to the Fourth Amendment. But if that very generalized view was all it took to show “clearly established law” in the qualified immunity context, then the inquiry on the second Saucier prong would be a useless exercise. Put simply, context matters. The Supreme Court spoke plainly to this point in Anderson:
The operation of [the qualified immunity] standard ... depends substantially upon the level of generality at which the relevant “legal rule” is to be identified. For example, the right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause, and thus there is a sense in which any action that violates that Clause (no matter how unclear it may be that.the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. Much the same could be said of any other constitutional or statutory violation. But if the test of “clearly established law” were to be applied at this level of generality, it would bear no relationship to the “objective legal reasonableness” that is the touchstone of Harlow. Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our [338]*338cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights. Harloiu would be transformed from a guarantee of immunity into a rule of pleading. Such an approach, in sum, would destroy “the balance that our cases strike between the interests in vindication of citizens’ constitutional rights and in public officials’ effective performance of their duties,” by making it impossible for officials “reasonably [to] anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability for damages.” Davis, supra, 468 U.S. at 195 [104 S.Ct. 3012],
483 U.S. at 639-40, 107 S.Ct. 3034.
If the level of generality advanced by Henry were to apply, Anderson would have been decided differently. The simple truism that a reasonable officer would know in the abstract that a warrantless search of a home without probable cause and exigent circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment would be all that was needed. However, in Anderson, this level of generality was rejected because it failed to account for the fact
that it was not clearly established that the circumstances with which Anderson was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances. ...
.... The relevant question in th[at] case, for example, [was] the objective (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed Anderson’s warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.
Id. at 640-41, 107 S.Ct. 3034.
Similarly, in Saucier, a reasonable officer would know, in the abstract, that use of excessive force to remove a demonstrator would violate the Fourth Amendment. See 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151. However, that over-simplified, generalized approach to the qualified immunity inquiry was adjudged faulty because it utterly failed to apply a level of specificity to the particular circumstances of the case. As with Anderson, had Henry’s generalized formulation of the qualified immunity inquiry applied, Saucier would have been decided differently. The Supreme Court has been clear that only in the “specific context of the case,” id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, can the issue of qualified immunity be properly determined.
The formulation of the scope of the qualified immunity inquiry by Henry and the dissent fails to take account of the “specific context of the case.” Id. That context is not simply that Henry was shot, but also that it is a stipulated fact that the shooting was an unintended mistake by Purnell. Furthermore, as our previous decision in this case established, “Henry does not argue that Purnell’s decision to use the [t]a-ser was unreasonable.” 501 F.3d at 382 n. 11.
Thus, the specific context of this case is where a police officer, who would have acted reasonably in using the taser to apprehend Henry, draws his firearm by mistake and unintentionally shoots Henry instead.14 The qualified immunity inquiry thus becomes whether an officer in that [339]*339“specific context” would know that an act of weapon confusion of the firearm for the taser was “clearly established” as an excessive use of force under the Fourth Amendment. The answer is that neither in 2003, nor indeed today, is there clearly established law to resolve that question for courts, much less police officers in the field. At the time of the shooting, case law did not exist that applied the Fourth Amendment to the specific context in which Deputy Purnell acted. Deputy Pur-nell could not have been on notice because no ease gave him fair warning that such weapon confusion violated the Fourth Amendment as a use of excessive force.15
We agree with the District Court in Torres v. City of Madera, 655 F.Supp.2d 1109 (E.D.Cal.2009), which considered the nearly identical question of firearm for taser weapon confusion, that the police officer is entitled to qualified immunity.16 “At the time of the ... shooting there was no clearly established federal law on what would make an officer’s mistaken use of her gun instead of her [t]aser unreasonable.” 655 F.Supp.2d at 1125. In that circumstance, no police officer would have “fair notice” that a mistake of weapon confusion contravened “clearly established” law.17
[340]*340Although we cannot say whether Deputy Purnell’s mistaken use of his firearm was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, we can say that Purnell lacked “fair notice” regarding the potential unlawfulness of his actions. Hope, 536 U.S. at 739, 122 S.Ct. 2508. At the second stage of the Saucier inquiry, “[t]he decisive fact is not” whether an officer’s position was correct, “but that the question was open at the time he acted.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 535, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).
The lawfulness of Deputy Purnell’s conduct was thus “open to reasonable dispute” at the time of the shooting, and officers are personally liable only “for transgressing bright lines,” not for intruding into “gray areas.” Wilson, 337 F.3d at 403 (quotation omitted). Consequently, Deputy Purnell is entitled to summary judgment in his favor on Henry’s § 1983 claim.18 See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”).
We do not find Henry’s contrary argument based on Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004) persuasive. Henry cites Justice Kennedy’s dissenting opinion in Groh for the proposition that “[m]istakes of fact can be relevant to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis only when they affect the officer’s assessment of the legality of his conduct.” Opening Brief at 43 n. 15 (citing Groh, 540 U.S. at 566-67, 124 S.Ct. 1284 (Kennedy, J., dissenting)). Because “Deputy Purnell has not suggested that anything about the situation before him misled him to believe that he could permissibly use deadly force,” id., Henry argues that Deputy Purnell’s intent to employ his taser “does not change the analysis under the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.” Id. at 42.
Henry’s argument is misplaced for at least three reasons. First, Purnell’s seizure of Henry occurred in 2003, a year before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Groh. Any application of Groh is, therefore, irrelevant to our analysis of clearly established law at the time of Purnell’s alleged misconduct. See Hope, 536 U.S. at 739, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (noting that courts consider whether a right is clearly established “in the light of pre-existing law” (quotation omitted)) (emphasis add[341]*341ed). Second, we have found no support for the proposition that a dissent may propound clearly established law for purposes of determining qualified immunity.
Third, even if we were to assume that Henry has correctly stated the relevant law, Deputy Purnell’s mistake of fact did affect his “assessment of the legality of his conduct.” Opening Brief at 43 n. 15. The mistake of fact at issue here is Pur-nell’s mistaken belief that he was firing his taser, instead of his firearm. And this mistake clearly influenced Purnell’s assessment of the legality of his conduct. Purnell has never asserted that he could permissibly use deadly force to halt Henry’s flight, but he has consistently argued that his intended use of a taser was appropriate. See, e.g., Response Brief at 49-50. As noted earlier, “it is undisputed that [Purnell’s] intended use of ... force was justified: Purnell had the right to use his [t]aser to detain Henry, a suspect fleeing arrest.”19 Henry, 559 F.Supp.2d at 651-52 (emphasis in original); see also Henry, 501 F.3d at 382 n. 11 (“Henry does not argue that Purnell’s decision to use the [tjaser was unreasonable.”). Henry’s argument based on Groh, which he identified as his “best case” on the question of qualified immunity, is thus without merit.
V.
The test for statutory immunity under Maryland law differs significantly from the qualified immunity analysis applicable under federal law. See Melgar, 593 F.3d at 360. Henry’s claim under the Maryland Constitution’s Declaration of Rights is, therefore, not resolved by our analysis of his federal claim. As the Court of Appeals of Maryland has explained, “[u]nlike qualified immunity from claims of violations of federal rights under § 1983, the question of immunity for State personnel from State law torts is a subjective one.” Newell v. Runnels, 407 Md. 578, 967 A.2d 729, 763 (2009).
Statutory immunity applies to Maryland state personnel who commit “a tortious act or omission ... within the scope of the[ir] public duties,” provided the act or omission “is made without malice or gross negligence.” Okwa v. Harper, 360 Md. 161, 757 A.2d 118, 128 (2000) (quotation omitted). To commit “gross negligence,” a wrongdoer must “inflict[ ] injury intentionally” or be “so utterly indifferent to the rights of others” as to “aet[] as if such rights d[o] not exist.” Newell, 967 A.2d at 764-65 (quotation omitted).
We, therefore, reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Henry’s state-law claim and remand to the district court, which may then determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. See Yashenko v. Harrah’s N.C. Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541, 553 n. 4 (4th Cir.2006) (explaining that once the “federal claims in an action” are dismissed the district court possesses “wide discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims over which it properly has supplemental jurisdiction”) (quotation omitted). If the district court chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [342]*342Henry’s state-law claim, it may then determine whether Purnell is entitled to statutory immunity under Maryland law.
VI.
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.