claims that Mattaliano, as Chief of the Milton Police Department, was responsible for continuing a “scheme of harassment” of Cullen initiated by Mattaliano’s predecessor, and that Mattaliano had “knowledge of,” “approved of,” and “had the power to prevent” this alleged scheme. However, Cullen has produced no factual evidence to support his allegations. Instead, in opposing Mattaliano’s claim of qualified immunity, Cullen relies primarily on the conclusory allegations stated in his complaint. What factual discrepancies he does point out in the record, however, are not material to Mattaliano’s claim of qualified immunity and cannot be considered by this Court when reviewing a summary judgment motion on the grounds of quali fied immunity. See Floyd v. Farrell, 765 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). No factual evidence whatsoever has been
holding that it was error for the district court to overrule  appellants motion for summary judgment without reference to the qualified immunity defense holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim holding that factual disputes will result in denial of summary judgment only when they pertain to the qualified immunity defense holding that defendants claiming qualified immunity to  1983 action were entitled to summary judgment where factual disputes were not material recognizing that the denial of qualified immunity at the dismissal stage does not preclude a renewal of that defense at summary judgment after further factual development has occurred