Duane Johnson v. US, No. 19-7551 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7551 DUANE JOSEPH JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SUHASINI SHAH, M.D., sued in her individual capacity; KATHERINE LAYBOURN, M.D., sued in her individual capacity; BENJAMIN RICE, M.D., sued in his individual capacity; MARK DICOCCO, M.D., sued in his individual capacity; BHAGYA KATTA, sued in his or her individual capacity; SALAM AKBAR, M.D., sued in his or her individual capacity; ALEJANDRO HADDED, sued in his or her individual capacity; IGNATIUS HALL, sued in his or her individual capacity; A. CHATMAN, HSA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01097-CMH-TCB) Submitted: June 30, 2020 Decided: July 7, 2020 Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duane Joseph Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Duane Joseph Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2018), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-01097-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 24, 2019 & entered Sept. 25, 2019). 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 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.