Lawrence Johnson v. T. O'Brien

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cv-00165-JCT-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998919496]. Mailed to: Lawrence Johnson. [12-6110]

Appeal: 12-6110

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6110

LAWRENCE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
T. O’BRIEN, Warden; CAPTAIN WILSON; LIEUTENANT TREES; J.
GILLEY, Lt.; T. TAYLOR, Corr. Officer; W. WELCH, Corr.
Officer; J. BAKER, Corr. Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CRUM;
CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER
B.
SHOEMAKER;
S.
WHITE,
C.O.;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER L. BISHOP; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A.
O’QUINN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER T. ROBINSON; R. SMITH, C.O.;
A. RUTHERFORD, RN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cv-00165-JCT-RSB)

Submitted:

August 16, 2012

Decided:

August 20, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6110

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lawrence

Johnson

appeals

the

jury

verdict

entered

against him in his Bivens * action, as well as several of the
district
regard
motions

court’s

to

the
for

pre-trial

jury

verdict

appointment

and

post-judgment

and

the

of

orders

counsel,

orders.

denying

change

With

Johnson’s

of

venue,

continuance, and judgment as a matter or law or, alternatively,
a new trial, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.

Johnson v. O’Brien, No. 7:09-cv-00165-JCT-RSB

(W.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2011; June 9, 2011; June 30, 2011; Sept. 22,
2011; Oct. 17, 2011; Oct. 20, 2011; Nov. 18, 2011; Jan. 12,
2012).
Turning the court’s dismissal of Johnson’s remaining
claims,

we

confine

Appellant’s brief.

our

review

to

the

issues

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

raised

in

the

Because Johnson does

not challenge on appeal the court’s reasons for rejecting these
claims, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.
We therefore affirm the denial of relief.
We

deny

Johnson’s

request

for

counsel

and

dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

*

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

Appeal: 12-6110

Doc: 14

adequately

Filed: 08/20/2012

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3