Norman Richardson v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2100
NORMAN RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Ajmel Ahsen Quereshi, Magistrate Judge. (8:22-cv-01625-AAQ)
Submitted: March 26, 2026 Decided: March 30, 2026
Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Monique L. Lee, CHASENBOSCOLO, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Kelly M. Marzullo, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Norman Richardson appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary
judgment to the United States on Richardson’s claim of negligence under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680. On appeal, Richardson argues that
the magistrate judge erred in finding there was not a genuine dispute of material fact as to
the United States’ assumption of the risk defense. The parties agree, however, that they
erroneously argued below that Maryland law applied to Richardson’s claim, and the
magistrate judge followed suit. Because Richardson’s claim arose from events that
occurred in the District of Columbia, the parties agree on appeal that D.C. law applies to
this claim. See Raplee v. United States, 842 F.3d 328, 331 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Because the
FTCA merely waives sovereign immunity to make the United States amenable to a state
tort suit, the substantive law of the state where the tort occurred determines the liability of
the United States.”).
The parties now ask this court to apply D.C. law to Richardson’s claim in the first
instance. But we are “a court of review, not of first view.” Pub. Int. Legal Found. v.
Wooten, 164 F.4th 362, 366 (4th Cir. 2026) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because it
is not immediately apparent that applying D.C. law would not alter the outcome of this
case, the parties should present their arguments in the district court and permit the
magistrate judge to consider them in the first instance.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.* 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
* By this disposition, we express no opinion on the merits of Richardson’s claim.

-- 3 of 3 --