David Graham Grice v. Linda Ford

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1405 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1405

DAVID GRAHAM GRICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LINDA B. FORD, Agent for Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; GERALD F. LACKEY, Agent for the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Vehicles, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cv-02005-RDA-IDD)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 28, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Graham Grice, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1405 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: David Graham Grice appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). In his informal brief, Grice argues only that the district court erred in declining to grant his requests for default judgment. Our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision not to enter default judgment. See White v. Gregory, 1 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir. 1993) (standard of review). Notably, because Grice’s initial attempt to effect service on the named defendants did not comply with Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he did not properly effect service until February 18, 2025. Defendants timely responded by moving to dismiss the complaint on March 10, 2025, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), (4)(A), (b)(1), (6), and thus were not in default. And, contrary to Grice’s assertion, the district court did not violate Grice’s due process rights by sua sponte directing him to correct his original defects in service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Gelin v. Shuman, 35 F.4th 212, 219-20 (4th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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