Kenneth Sorensen v. John Wolfe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-01198-PWG,8:15-cv-03041-PWG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000044130]. Mailed to: Kenneth Sorensen. [16-7549]

Appeal: 16-7549

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7549

KENNETH SORENSEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN
WOLFE,
is
the
Warden
of
Jessup
Correctional
Institution; S PRIGGS, is a Case Manager of the State of
Maryland Department of Corrections; LT. BARNETT, is a
Correctional Officer; CAPTAIN SHAW, Is a Correctional
Officer; DR. MOORE, is a Psychologist; CAROL JACKSON, is a
Chief Medical Supervisor Medical Records Supervisor; GEORGE
ALLEN, is a Case Manager; ROBERT JORDAN, is a Correctional
Officer of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections;
LIEUTENANT LEGRAND; KEVIN J. MCCOMANT; SERGEANT SHEKEY
SELLMAN; FRANK B. BISHOP, JR.; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR.;
MICHAEL P. THOMAS; W. SLATE; RONALD GORDON; ROBERT TICHNELL;
DAVID SIPES; E. CLARK; "BULTER"; "LIKIN"; J. MONROE;
"KARUNZIE"; JANE DOE #2, escorting transportation officer,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE, is the Inspector General of the State of Maryland
Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE, is the Director of the
State of Maryland for the Division of Corrections; JOHN DOE,
is the Unit Chief of the State of Maryland Department of
Corrections; JOHN HAMMOND, is the County Executive for Anne
Arrundel County; JOHN DOE, is the Director of Statewide
Department
of
Corrections;
JOHN
DOE,
is
the
Deputy
Superintendent of Operations of the State of Maryland
Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE, is the Treatment
Supervisor
of
the
State
of
Maryland
Department
of
Corrections; AYO, is a Case Manager of the State of Maryland
Department of Corrections; J MICHAEL STOUFFER, is the
Commissioner of the State of Maryland Department of
Corrections,

Appeal: 16-7549

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15cv-01198-PWG; 8:15-cv-03041-PWG)

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 17, 2017

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Kenneth Sorensen, Appellant Pro Se.
Nichole Cherie Gatewood,
Ankush Nayar, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7549

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Sorensen seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting

in

part

and

denying

in

part

Defendants’

motion

for

summary judgment in Sorensen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil
rights

action,

and

denying

Sorensen’s

preliminary injunctive relief.

third

motion

for

We dismiss in part and affirm in

part.
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, 54546 (1949).

The portion of the order Sorensen seeks to appeal

that granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for
summary

judgment

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.

order

nor

an

appealable

Accordingly, we dismiss this

appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction.
We have jurisdiction, though, over that aspect of the order
that denied Sorensen’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012).

On appeal, we confine our

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
Cir.

R.

34(b).

Because

Sorensen’s

informal

brief

See 4th
does

not

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of this
motion, Sorensen has forfeited appellate review of that portion
of the appealed-from order.

See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
3

Appeal: 16-7549

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we affirm

in part the district court’s judgment.
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.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4