Court Opinion

ID: 9895013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:38.835943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:22.226298
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1734      Doc: 17         Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1734

        RICHARD M. SIMPSON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG; YVONNE J. NAGEOTTE; NAGEOTTE,
        NAGEOTTE, NAGEOTTE, PC,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00745-HEH)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richard M. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Marie Carroll, Richmond, Virginia, Melissa
        Yvonne York, Julie Smith Palmer, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN,
        Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1734      Doc: 17        Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Richard M. Simpson appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his amended

        complaint and awarding sanctions to the defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. * Limiting

        our review to the issues raised in Simpson’s informal briefs, we have reviewed the record

        and discern no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775

        F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth

        Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s orders. Simpson v. City of Fredericksburg, No. 3:22-cv-00745-

        HEH (E.D. Va., June 27, 2023; July 14, 2023; Aug. 3, 2023). 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

              *
                We construe Simpson’s informal brief as the functional equivalent of a notice of
        appeal from the district court’s August 3, 2023, final order on sanctions. See Smith v.
        Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992).

                                                    2