HANDY v. JOHNSON JOHNSON (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Aslam HANDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; Federal Reserve Board of Governors; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America; Maximus, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-1003

Decided: May 29, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

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.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network