RICHARDSON v. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Edward RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT; Barry M. Barnard, Chief of Police Prince William County Police Department; Stephan Hudson, Chief (Retired); Charlie T. Deane, Major (Retired); Timothy Rudy, Major (Retired); Scott A. Vago, Captain; Jay Lanham, Major (Retired); Michael A. Fernald, First Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
Edward Richardson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Prince William County Government; Barry M. Barnard, Chief of Police Prince William County Police Department; Stephan Hudson, Chief (Retired); Charlie T. Deane, Major (Retired); Timothy Rudy, Major (Retired); Scott A. Vago, Captain; Jay Lanham, Major (Retired); Michael A. Fernald, First Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
Edward Richardson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Prince William County Government; Barry M. Barnard, Chief of Police Prince William County Police Department; Stephan Hudson, Chief (Retired); Charlie T. Deane, Major (Retired); Timothy Rudy, Major (Retired); Scott A. Vago, Captain; Jay Lanham, Major (Retired); Michael A. Fernald, First Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
Edward Richardson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Prince William County Government; Barry M. Barnard, Chief of Police Prince William County Police Department; Stephan Hudson, Chief (Retired); Charlie T. Deane, Major (Retired); Timothy Rudy, Major (Retired); Scott A. Vago, Captain; Jay Lanham, Major (Retired); Michael A. Fernald, First Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-1108, No. 18-1109, No. 18-1135, No. 18-1174

Decided: June 25, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Edward Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

In these consolidated appeals, Edward Richardson appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint and related claims as well as his motions to recuse, for a change of venue, for stay of the proceedings, and an order granting the defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Prince William Cty. Gov't, No. 1:17-cv-00761-CMH-TCB, 2018 WL 548666 (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2018; Jan. 24, 2018; Jan. 31, 2018; Feb. 9, 2018). 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

PER CURIAM:

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

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law