David D. Richardson v. United States of America, Hillery Bollman

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-2771
__________
DAVID D. RICHARDSON,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HILLERY BOLLMAN
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-02015)
District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 15, 2026
Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and BOVE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 19, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
David D. Richardson, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order denying his
motion to void a previous judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4).
We will affirm.
Richardson proceeded with a fourth amended complaint under the Federal Tort
Claims Act against the United States related to his stay at the United States Veteran’s
Affairs Medical Center in Philadelphia. The United States filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). The
District Court granted that motion, holding that Richardson failed to state a claim, that
there was insufficient process on the United States, and that any further amendment
would be futile. Richardson timely appealed. This Court summarily affirmed. See
Richardson v. United States, C.A. No. 24-2808, 2025 WL 1275771 (3d Cir. May 2, 2005)
(not precedential).
Thereafter, Richardson filed several motions in the District Court, one of which is
the subject of this appeal. On July 14, 2025, Richardson filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion
arguing that because the United States was not properly served, the District Court lacked
personal jurisdiction over the United States, so its dismissal of his fourth amended
complaint was void.1
The District Court denied the motion concluding that it had broad discretion to
dismiss the fourth amended complaint in part for failure to effect service on the United
1 Richardson filed a separate Rule 60(b)(4) motion in the District Court that is not the
subject of this appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
States. It further noted that it had also dismissed the fourth amended complaint on the
merits. This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the denial of a Rule
60(b)(4) motion is plenary. See Page v. Schweiker, 786 F.2d 150, 152 (3d Cir. 1986).
We agree with the District Court that Richardson’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion was
meritless. “[A] motion under Rule 60(b)(4) is not a substitute for a timely appeal.” United
Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). But that is precisely what
Richardson sought to do. He disclaimed any challenge sounding in due process and failed
to demonstrate that this is an “exceptional case” warranting Rule 60(b)(4) relief. Id.
Accordingly, we will affirm.

-- 3 of 3 --