Jerman Barton v. James Johnson, No. 14-6379 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6379 JERMAN BARTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES JOHNSON, Sergeant, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00415-JFA) Submitted: August 13, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerman Barton, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Thomas Dorsel, Caitlin Elizabeth Pierson, Sandra J. Senn, SENN LEGAL, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerman Barton appeals the district court s order entering judgment on the jury s verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action in favor of defendant James Johnson. Although there is no transcript of the jury trial in the record before us, we may authorize the preparation of a transcript at government expense where the litigant proceeds in forma pauperis and has shown the existence of a appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). informal brief, we conclude that substantial question for appeal. 192 F. Supp. question). 903, 905 (D. substantial question for After reviewing Barton s Barton has not raised a See Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp., Md. 1959) (defining substantial Accordingly, we deny his request for a transcript at government expense, see Rhodes v. Corps of Eng rs of U.S. Army, 589 F.2d 358, 359 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam), and affirm the district court s order entering judgment on the jury s verdict. Barton v. Johnson, No. 1:13 cv 00415-JFA (D.S.C. filed Mar. 4, 2014; entered Mar. 5, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.