The existence of a clearly established constitutional right is a purely legal question which requires this court to apply a
de novo standard of review.
Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d at 1204. We must, however, also examine the undisputed facts of the record in evaluating the objective legal reasonableness of the defendants' conduct.
Id. at 1204–1205. As this court pointed out in
Green v. Carlson, “[w]hen considering the issue of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment, a district court should consider all of the undisputed evidence in the record, read in the light most favorable to the non-movant.”
826 F.2d at 650. Accordingly, if the undisputed facts of this case, so construed, indicate that the defendants' conduct did not violate any clearly established legal standard, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.
See id. at 652. But if there are issues of disputed fact upon which the question of immunity turns, or if it is clear that the defendants' conduct violated clearly established norms, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants was not proper.
See id.