Keith Goodman v. Gene Johnson, No. 15-6042 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6042 KEITH D. GOODMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON; HAROLD W. CLARKE; JOHN JABE; FRED SHILLING; KIM RUNION; ELTON BROWN, Doctor; KRYM; SPRUILL, Doctor; HARVARD STEPHENS, Doctor, Defendants – Appellees, and A. DAVID ROBINSON; J. LAFOON; Q. BIRCHETTE; MS. G.F. SIVELS; G. ROBINSON; CASSANDRA TAYLOR; C. MAYES; C. BAILEY; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00079-GBL-IDD) Submitted: May 22, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and Appeal dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. June 17, 2015 DAVIS, Senior Keith D. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia; Gary Christopher Jones, Jr., Mark Charles Nanavati, SINNOTT, NUCKOLS & LOGAN, PC, Midlothian, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Keith D. Goodman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Goodman seeks nor to appeal is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. order an appealable Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny his motions to appoint counsel on appeal and for a stay pending appeal. We also deny his motion to amend his informal brief because the claims presented therein are more appropriately raised in his appeal from judgment. legal before the district court’s order granting summary We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 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.