William Scott Davis, Jr. v. Charlotte Mitchel
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999102446-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999087190-2] Originating case number: 5:12-cv-00493-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999121506]. Mailed to: William Scott Davis II. [12-2552]
Appeal: 12-2552
Doc: 20
Filed: 06/04/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2552
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., as next best
daughter J.F.D., a minor; J.F.D., a minor,
friend
to
his
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CHARLOTTE MITCHEL, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of
J.F.D., appointed by the Court; WENDY KIRWAN, individually
and as Supervisor Wake County N.C. Guardian Ad Litem
Program; NAOMIE LIVINGSTON, Individually and as Director
Wake County NC Guardian Ad Litem Program and all staff
individually and in their official capacities as program
managers, superiors and Advocate Attorneys for the Wake
County NC 10th Judicial District Guardian Ad Litem Program;
JANE VOLLAND, Individually, and as Director of the State of
North Carolina Ad Litem; BEVERLY PERDUE, individually and as
Governor of the State of North Carolina; NANCY BERSON,
individually and as Child and Family for UNC School of
Medicine Program on Childhood Trauma and Maltreatment;
ANTHONY HAL MORRIS, Individually and in their official
capacities as Advocate Attorneys for the Wake County N.C.
Guardian Ad Litem Program; RICHARD CROUTHARMEL, Individually
and in their official capacities as Advocate Attorneys; for
the Wake County N.C. Guardian Ad Litem Program; SUSAN F.
VICK, Individually and in their official capacities as
Advocate Attorneys; for the Wake County N.C. Guardian Ad
Litem Program; REGINALD O'ROURKE, Individually and in their
official capacities as Advocate Attorneys; for the Wake
County N.C. Guardian Ad Litem Program; MELLONNEE KENNEDY,
Individually and in their official capacities as Advocate
Attorneys; for the Wake County N.C. Guardian Ad Litem
Program; CARRIE FLATT, Individually and in their official
capacities, as Program Supervisors for the Wake County, N.C.
Guardian Ad Litem Program; FONDA LYONS-COUSAR; MARGARET
HERTZLER, individually and in their official capacities, as
Program Supervisors for the Wake County, N.C. Guardian Ad
Litem Program; CHERYL HANES, Individually and in their
Appeal: 12-2552
Doc: 20
Filed: 06/04/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
official capacities, as Program Supervisors
County, N.C. Guardian Ad Litem Program,
for
the
Wake
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cv-00493-F)
Submitted:
May 30, 2013
Decided:
June 4, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 12-2552
Doc: 20
Filed: 06/04/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order staying the case pending this court’s judgment on
Davis’ prior interlocutory notice of appeal.
This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2006),
and
certain
interlocutory
and
collateral
orders,
28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
seeks
to
appeal
is
neither
a
final
order
The order Davis
nor
an
appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We deny Davis’ motions for
appointment of counsel.
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.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?