that Anderson had no right to further argument before the TRC and that any such argument would have been frivolous. Defendants further maintain that even if the failure to afford Anderson some kind of hearing before the TRC violated his right to due process, such a right was not clearly established in these circumstances. DISCUSSION This Court has jurisdiction over defendants’ appeal of the district court’s entry of partial summary judgment because a “denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); see also Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 66 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). We review a grant of summary judgment de
holding that a denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision holding that a denial of qualified immunity on the law is collateral to the merits of the underlying action and is therefore considered final for appellate purposes holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes holding that a district courts denial of a claim of qualified immunity to the extent that it turns on an issue of law is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 usc  1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment holding that the collateral order doctrine allows for immediate appellate review of the denial of an eleventh amendment immunity claim