Randall Sousa v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2222
RANDALL SOUSA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY; WILLBERG TEDDY
CHAPILLIQUEN; THE HONORABLE DAVID BERNHARD; THE
HONORABLE CHARLES S. SHARPE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01304-MSN-JFA)
Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: September 23, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall Sousa, Appellant Pro Se. Bret D. Lee, BRET LEE LEGAL SOLUTIONS PLLC,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee Willberg Teddy Chapilliquen.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Randall Sousa appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Relief from
Final Judgment Under Rule 60(B).” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error.* See Moore v. Frazier, 941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019) (reiterating that this court
may affirm “on any ground apparent on the record”); see, e.g., Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d
496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that this court “require[s]—in addition to the explicitly
stated requirements that the motion under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 60(b)(6) be filed on ‘just terms’
and within ‘a reasonable time’—that the party filing the motion have a meritorious claim
or defense and that the opposing party not be unfairly prejudiced by having the judgment
set aside”); In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992) (“When making a motion under
Rule 60(b), the party moving for relief must clearly establish the grounds therefor to the
satisfaction of the district court, and such grounds must be clearly substantiated by
adequate proof.” (cleaned up)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Sousa v. Cir. Ct. of Fairfax Cnty.,
No. 1:21-cv-01304-MSN-JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 12, 2024). 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 deny Sousa’s motion to schedule oral argument and “Appellant’s Motion for
Judicial Notice,” and we deny as moot his motion to expedite a decision on the motion for
oral argument.

-- 2 of 2 --