Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07549/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07549-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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: 1 of 4
2

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-

cv-01198-PWG; 8:15-cv-03041-PWG)

Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 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

Appeal: 16-7549 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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 third motion for 

preliminary injunctive relief. 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, 545-

46 (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 order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. 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. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sorensen’s informal brief 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., 

Appeal: 16-7549 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 3 of 4
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

Appeal: 16-7549 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 4 of 4