Richard M. Simpson v. City of Fredericksburg; Yvonne J. Nageotte; Nageotte, Nageotte, Nageotte, Pc

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --