Kenard Johnson v. Stan Barry, No. 12-6889 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6889 KENARD E. JOHNSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. STAN BARRY, Sheriff of Fairfax Supervisor policy and planning; SERVICES, County; ARAMARK LT. TANNER, CORRECTIONAL Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00227-LMB-TCB) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenard E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenard complaint in E. the Johnson district filed court. a 42 U.S.C. He § 1983 appeals the (2006) district court s order denying class certification and dismissing Aramark Correctional Services and also appeals the district court s order dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. We dismiss the appeal of Johnson s § 1983 claims, with the exception Correctional of the district Services. This court s court may dismissal exercise of Aramark jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court that Johnson failed to amend his complaint and particularize his claims may be remedied by the filing of a complaint that satisfies the requirements of the district court, we conclude that, as to the dismissal of the complaint, with the exception of the dismissal of Aramark Correctional Services, the district court s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 2 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. With respect to the district court s dismissal of Aramark Correctional Services and denial of class certification, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Barry, No. 1:12-cv-00227-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 12, 2012). We dispense deny with Johnson s oral motion argument to because appoint the counsel. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3
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.
