Veronica Johnson v. William Moore

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1962 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1962

VERONICA M. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JUDGE WILLIAM S. MOORE, Portsmouth Circuit Court Judge; JUDGE KENNETH R. MELVIN, Portsmouth Circuit Court Judge; JUDGE JOHNNY MORRISON, Portsmouth Circuit Court Judge; JUDGE JOEL CROWE, Portsmouth Circuit Court Judge; JUDGE BRENDA SPRY, Portsmouth Circuit Court Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00258-AWA-RJK)

Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Veronica Moody Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1962 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Veronica M. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her pro se 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2) amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) on the

ground that Defendants enjoyed absolute judicial immunity.* Johnson alleged that five

current and former judges of the Portsmouth Circuit Court conspired to deprive her of her

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by recusing themselves from her state court

lawsuit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Defendants’ recusals

in Johnson’s state law action constituted judicial acts shielded by absolute immunity. See

Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 258 (6th Cir. 1997) (stating that “recusal is

undoubtedly an act that concerns judicial decision-making”). Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order. Johnson v. Moore, No. 2:23-cv-00258-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va.

Sept. 19, 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

* The district court also concluded that Johnson failed to state a claim to relief for her state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Johnson does not challenge the dismissal of that claim in her informal brief and, therefore, has forfeited appellate review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).