Richard Simpson v. City of Fredericksburg, No. 23-1734 (4th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1734 RICHARD M. SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG; YVONNE J. NAGEOTTE;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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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-00745HEH (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

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.