Randall Sousa v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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.