Michael R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; Jane Doe Clinckscales; Rufus Fleming, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellants, and Givens, Records Office Manager; Houston Shiflett, Unit Manager; Avon Quiero; Jane Doe Stem, Defendants, 119 F. App'x 565

PER CURIAM: Appellants have filed an appeal of the district court’s order denying their motion for

summary judgment based on qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. It is well established that a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment. Renn v. Garrison, 100 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir.1996) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)). We review the district court’s denial of a defense of qualified immunity de novo. Hodge v. Jones, 31 F.3d 157, 163 (4th Cir.1994).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307 (E.D.Va.2004). We deny Johnson’s motions for sanctions and to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. We express no view as to whether Johnson will ultimately be able to establish the objective and subjective elements of his ETS claim. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED