USCA4 Appeal: 24-6338 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6338

THOMAS BARTHOLOMEW SIMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GLENN YOUNGKIN; ROBERT MOSIER; JASON S. MIYARES; HAROLD W. CLARKE; WARDEN TIKKI HICKS; TONY DARDEN; BRIAN DAWSON; LEONARD LEVIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:23-cv-00032-MHL-MRC)

Submitted: November 21, 2025 Decided: December 17, 2025

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Bartholomew Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6338 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Bartholomew Simpson appeals the district court’s order and judgment

dismissing his

complaint under

(e)(2)(B). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

First, contrary to Simpson’s arguments on appeal, the district court adequately

notified Simpson that his particularized complaint needed to comply with the joinder rules

set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2), and it did not violate his due process or equal protection

rights by enforcing those rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (stating that court “may at any time

. . . drop a [misjoined] party”). Second, Simpson’s Eighth Amendment claim against the

first-named defendant did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as Simpson’s

claims against different defendants; therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion

by dismissing the latter claims without prejudice as improperly joined. See Courthouse

News Serv. v. Schaefer,

(4th Cir. 2021) (discussing when joinder is

appropriate). Third, the court correctly dismissed Simpson’s Eighth Amendment claim

because he failed to plausibly allege that any of the defendants named therein knowingly

disregarded a substantial risk to his health or safety. See Ford v. Hooks,

,

230 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating elements of Eighth Amendment claim). Finally, because

Simpson did not present a colorable claim, the court did not abuse its discretion by

declining to appoint him counsel. See Jenkins v. Woodard,

(4th Cir.

2024) (discussing appointment of counsel in civil cases).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we deny Simpson’s

motions for appointment of counsel and for a restraining order and injunction. Simpson v.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6338 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/17/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Youngkin, No. 3:23-cv-00032-MHL-MRC (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 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

3