Kenard E. Johnson v. STAN BARRY, Sheriff of Fairfax County

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6889
KENARD E. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STAN BARRY, Sheriff of Fairfax County; LT. TANNER,
Supervisor policy and planning; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES,
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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kenard E. Johnson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint in the district court. He appeals the 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 of the district court’s dismissal of Aramark
Correctional Services. This court may exercise 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 of 3 --

3
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 deny Johnson’s motion to appoint counsel. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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 of 3 --