and Chamberlain separately moved to dismiss Mr. Bella’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Raising the defense of qualified immunity, the officers argued as a threshold matter that the complaint failed to state a constitutional claim. They also argued that, even if the complaint did state a constitutional claim, they were still entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were objectively reasonable. The district court held that the complaint stated a claim under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and that the qualified immunity defense did not otherwise shield the defendants from liability. Making the same arguments they made below, Officers Meyers and Chamberlain now bring this appeal pursuant to Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (<HOLDING>). II. Discussion A. Qualified Immunity We
holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc  1291 holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291 holding that a denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision 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