River Richards v. Major Brian Parks - Appeal of Complaint Dismissal

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of River Richards' amended complaint without prejudice. The court found no reversible error in the dismissal for failure to state a claim or in the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The decision is unpublished and not binding precedent.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss River Richards' amended complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The dismissal was based on the complaint's failure to state a claim, and the district court also denied Richards' subsequent motion for reconsideration. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no grounds for reversal.

This decision is an unpublished per curiam opinion, meaning it does not set binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit. While the plaintiff, River Richards, represented himself (pro se), the court's affirmation suggests that the procedural and substantive requirements for stating a claim under § 1983 were not met. No specific actions are required for regulated entities, as this is an individual case appeal. However, it serves as a reminder of the standards for pleading claims in federal court, particularly for pro se litigants.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6570 RIVER RICHAR DS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MAJOR BRIAN PARKS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of V irginia, at Roanoke. Jasmine Hyejung Yoon, District Judg e. (7:25 - cv - 00248 - JHY - JCH) Submitted: February 26, 202 6 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before NIEMEYER a nd QUATTL EBAUM, Circuit Ju dges, and FLOYD, Senio r Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. River Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: River Richards appeals the district court’s order s dismiss ing his a mended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to s tate a claim and denying his motio n for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order s. Richards v. Parks, No. 7:2 5 - cv - 00248 - JHY - JCH (W.D. Va. J une 1 3, 2025; Jun e 30, 2025). 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 d ecisional process. AFFIRMED