Dan Chacko v. Melissa Preston ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1243 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1243
DAN CHACKO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MELISSA PRESTON; DAVID POWELL; JOHN R. FORD; BERNIE ELERO;
JENNIFER TIDWELL; ODIN FELDMAN PITTLEMAN PC; JOHN DOES 1-35,
(said names being fictions uncertain and unknown persons or entities) aiding,
abetting and funding,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00551-PTG-IDD)
Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 18, 2024
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dan Chacko, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline V. Davis, David L. Hauck, DUANE, HAUCK,
DAVIS, GRAVATT & CAMPBELL, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1243 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Dan Chacko appeals the district court’s orders dismissing Chacko’s civil action
raising a variety of claims stemming from his ongoing dispute with his neighborhood
Homeowners Association. Limiting our review to the issues raised in Chacko’s informal
brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)
(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is
limited to issues preserved in that brief.”), we have reviewed the district court’s rulings on
Defendants’ motions to dismiss and find no reversible error.
Specifically, we agree with the district court’s rulings that (a) as relevant to
Chacko’s claim under the Fair Housing Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, 3631, there is
nothing to show how Chacko’s property was substantially similar to the proffered
comparator properties, which were identified only by their addresses; and (b) Chacko failed
to sufficiently allege that Defendants’ actions violated his rights under the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (SCRA), see 50 U.S.C. §§ 3901-4043, or, more generally, that Chacko
qualified for protection under the SCRA because the facts as pled did not establish that
Chacko met the SCRA’s definition of an “active-duty servicemember,” see 50 U.S.C.
§ 3911(2)(A). We also observe that Chacko’s general argument that the Virginia Property
Owners Association Act violates his rights, as a homeowner, under the First, Third, Fourth,
Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, is not responsive to any aspect of the district
court’s second, more expansive dismissal order. To the extent that this assertion relates to
the first dismissal order, in which the court dismissed multiple counts for reasons stated at
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1243 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
the hearing on the first round of motions to dismiss, such a nonspecific and conclusory
contention does not allow for meaningful appellate review.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal orders. Chacko v. Preston,
No. 1:23-cv-00551-PTG-IDD (E.D. Va. July 6, 2023; 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