may not appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the district court determined that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). However, this appeal does not turn on disputed facts, but, rather, presents a question of law — whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to Brown allege a constitutional violation at all. It is clear "that summary judgment determinations are ap-pealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an 'abstract issu[e] of law' relating to qualified immunity,” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (quoting Johnson, 515 U.S. at 317, 115 S.Ct. 2151); see also Gould v. Davis, 165 F.3d 265, 269 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). And the Supreme Court only recently made
holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim holding that  reasonableness of the officers decision in applying for and executing the warrant is a legal question and therefore the court had jurisdiction to hear appeal from the district courts order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding that the fourth circuit had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a south carolina district courts order denying a motion to compel arbitration even though the district court also transferred the case to a georgia district court holding the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the circuit court had the power to remand the agency decision for further proceedings