Jeremiah Johnson v. Mel Foster Co. Insurance, Inc. , 475 F. App'x 640 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 12-1486
    ___________
    Jeremiah Johnson,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the Southern
    * District of Iowa.
    Mel Foster Co. Insurance, Inc.;          *
    Suzanne M. Martens,                      * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 5, 2012
    Filed: July 16, 2012
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jeremiah Johnson appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of his
    complaint. For reversal, he asserts for the first time that the judge was biased against
    him, and he argues that the court erred in dismissing his claim under the Privacy Act,
    5 U.S.C. § 552a.
    1
    The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa.
    To begin, we need not consider Johnson’s assertion of judicial bias, see In re
    Medlock, 
    406 F.3d 1066
    , 1073 (8th Cir. 2005) (appellant waived argument that he
    was tried by biased judge where he failed to raise issue in district court in accordance
    with 
    28 U.S.C. § 144
    ), but, in any event, we perceive it to be meritless, see Perkins
    v. Spivey, 
    911 F.2d 22
    , 33 (8th Cir. 1990) (disqualification is appropriate only if facts
    would provide objective, knowledgeable member of public with reasonable basis for
    doubting judge’s impartiality).
    Moreover, following careful de novo review of the dismissal, see Walker v.
    Barrett, 
    650 F.3d 1198
    , 1203 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review), we agree with the
    district court that Johnson failed to state a claim under the Privacy Act, see Unt v.
    Aerospace Corp., 
    765 F.2d 1440
    , 1447 (9th Cir. 1985) (civil remedy provisions of
    Privacy Act do not apply against private individuals and entities); cf. Youngblood v.
    Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc., 
    266 F.3d 851
    , 855 (8th Cir. 2001) (private party’s mere
    invocation of state legal procedures does not constitute state action).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    - 2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-1486

Citation Numbers: 475 F. App'x 640

Judges: Murphy, Arnold, Shepherd

Filed Date: 7/16/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024