Which source supports this Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al. summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCasesScott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.

W.D. Virginia · Dec 9, 2025

VA / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations fabricated quotes misrepresented authority Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of fabricated and misrepresented legal citations, which the court attributed to the likely use of generative AI. The court explicitly stated that future instances of such conduct may trigger Rule 11 sanction proceedings.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Snider Int’l Corp. v. City of Norfolk, 739 F.3d 140, 150 (4th Cir. 2014)'; the court could not identify a case by that name and noted the reporter corresponds to Snider Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, which does not support plaintiff's assertion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language he attributed to Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 216 (3d Cir. 2013); the court found the quoted language appears to have been fabricated and does not appear in that opinion.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a memorandum opinion denying a pro se plaintiff's motions to amend his complaint, the court addressed the plaintiff's use of fabricated and misrepresented legal citations. The court identified that the plaintiff cited a non-existent case and fabricated quotes attributed to a Third Circuit opinion. The court noted that these errors likely resulted from the use of generative artificial intelligence. While the court did not impose formal sanctions at this time, it issued a formal warning to the plaintiff, stating that future filings containing fabricated or misrepresented authorities may result in an order to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

VirginiaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore VAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtW.D. Virginia

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateDec 9, 2025

AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court denied the plaintiff's motions and issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI-generated false citations.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court attributed the errors to generative artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Memorandum opinion denying plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment and motions for leave to file third and fourth amended complaints.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Snider Int’l Corp. v. City of Norfolk, 739 F.3d 140, 150 (4th Cir. 2014)'; the court could not identify a case by that name and noted the reporter corresponds to Snider Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, which does not support plaintiff's assertion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language he attributed to Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 216 (3d Cir. 2013); the court found the quoted language appears to have been fabricated and does not appear in that opinion.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.?: The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of fabricated and misrepresented legal citations, which the court attributed to the likely use of generative AI. The court explicitly stated that future instances of such conduct may trigger Rule 11 sanction proceedings.
Why does Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al. summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al.W.D. Virginia · May 20, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Suiter v. GM - General Motors, LLCW.D. Virginia · Mar 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations United States v. Michael Shane DeBaere (2)W.D. Virginia · Jan 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Gavin Simpson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLCW.D. Virginia · Dec 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Gail Fung v. Liberty UniversityW.D. Virginia · Feb 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Brian Bailey v. Hon. Clark A. Ritchie, et al.W.D. Virginia · Jan 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open W.D. Virginia profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology