Calvin Barnes v. Renard Johnson, No. 09-1098 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1098 CALVIN BARNES; CHRISTINE BARNES, Plaintiffs Appellants, and SHRECO T. BURNETT, Plaintiff, v. RENARD JOHNSON; PURCELL, APPLE TITLE INTERNATIONAL, LLC; WILL Defendants Appellees, and MONTGOMERY CAPITAL CORPORATION; MICHAL JOHNSON, Individual and Official Agent of Montgomery Capital Corp., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08cv-01056-RWT) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. June 26, 2009 Calvin Barnes, Christine Barnes, Appellants Pro Se. Shirlie Norris Lake, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Will Purcell, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Calvin and Christine Barnes appeal the district court s orders dismissing their civil action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) and denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking asserting claims reconsideration of the dismissal order. * The Barneses filed a civil action under Maryland law arising out of a sale-leaseback transaction among the Barneses Barneses, sought Defendants well alleged plaintiff over fraud Burnett, $75,000 and in and Defendants. damages resulting misrepresentation and The from claimed jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006). The complaint, however, failed to allege facts sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and all Defendants. See Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Carroll Carolina Oil Co., Inc., 145 F.3d 660, 663 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. With regard to the Barneses Rule 59(e) motion, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in * Although the Barneses did not specify whether their motion for reconsideration was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b), because it was filed within the ten-day limit for Rule 59(e) motions, it is treated as such. See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). 3 denying the motion. See Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1998). affirm the district court s orders. Accordingly, we Barnes, et al. v. Johnson, et al., No. 8:08-cv-01056-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 25, 2008; Dec. 17, 2008). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.