Aslam Handy v. Johnson & Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [1000286091-2]; denying Motion to extend filing time [1000243456-2]. Originating case number: 3:17-cv-00274-JAG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000302142]. Mailed to: Aslam Handy. [18-1003]

Appeal: 18-1003

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/29/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1003

ASLAM HANDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS;
TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH
AMERICA; MAXIMUS, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00274-JAG)

Submitted: May 24, 2018

Decided: May 29, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aslam Handy, Appellant Pro Se.
Cameron Scott Matheson, MURPHY &
MCGONIGLE, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia; Jocelyn Renee Cuttino, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Washington,
D.C.; Gregory David Grant, SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER,
PA, Potomac, Maryland, for Appellees.

Appeal: 18-1003

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/29/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 18-1003

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/29/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Aslam Handy appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for
lack of jurisdiction over several defendants, and for the failure to state a claim for relief
against all defendants.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny as moot Handy’s motions for an extension of time to file an
informal reply brief and to file a supplemental brief, and affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Handy v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 3:17-cv-00274-JAG (E.D. Va.
Dec. 29, 2017). 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