Edward Richardson v. Prince William County Govt, No. 18-1108 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1108 EDWARD RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT; BARRY M. BARNARD, Chief of Police Prince William County Police Department; STEPHAN HUDSON, Chief (Retired); CHARLIE T. DEANE, Major (Retired); TIMOTHY RUDY, Major (Retired); SCOTT A. VAGO, Captain; JAY LANHAM, Major (Retired); MICHAEL A. FERNALD, First Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-1109 EDWARD RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT; BARRY M. BARNARD, Chief of Police Prince William County Police Department; STEPHAN HUDSON, Chief (Retired); CHARLIE T. DEANE, Major (Retired); TIMOTHY RUDY, Major (Retired); SCOTT A. VAGO, Captain; JAY LANHAM, Major (Retired); MICHAEL A. FERNALD, First Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-1135 EDWARD RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT; BARRY M. BARNARD, Chief of Police Prince William County Police Department; STEPHAN HUDSON, Chief (Retired); CHARLIE T. DEANE, Major (Retired); TIMOTHY RUDY, Major (Retired); SCOTT A. VAGO, Captain; JAY LANHAM, Major (Retired); MICHAEL A. FERNALD, First Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-1174 EDWARD RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT; BARRY M. BARNARD, Chief of Police Prince William County Police Department; STEPHAN HUDSON, Chief (Retired); CHARLIE T. DEANE, Major (Retired); TIMOTHY RUDY, Major (Retired); SCOTT A. VAGO, Captain; JAY LANHAM, Major (Retired); MICHAEL A. FERNALD, First Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00761-CMH-TCB) 2 Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Edward Richardson appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint and related claims as well as his motions to recuse, for a change of venue, for stay of the proceedings, and an order granting the defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Prince William Cty. Gov’t, No. 1:17cv-00761-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2018; Jan. 24, 2018; Jan. 31, 2018; Feb. 9, 2018). 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 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.