Wake County Human Services v. William Davis, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999102450-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999088046-2] Originating case number: 5:12-cv-00413-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999137184]. Mailed to: Davis. [13-1066]

Appeal: 13-1066

Doc: 19

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1066

WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II,
Defendants - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:12-cv-00413-BO)

Submitted:

June 20, 2013

Decided:

June 25, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1066

Doc: 19

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
remanding his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
order

remanding

a

case

to

state

reviewable on appeal or otherwise.
The

Supreme

appellate

Court

review

has

remand

is

generally

not

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006).

limited

those

court

An

§ 1447(d)
orders

to

based

insulate
on

the

from

grounds

specified in § 1447(c): a defect in the removal procedure or a
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Ins.

Co.,

district

517

U.S.

court

706,

remanded

711-12
the

Quackenbush v. Allstate

(1996).

case

because

matter jurisdiction over the proceeding.
does not implicate § 1443.

In
it

this

case,

lacked

the

subject

Moreover, this case

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction.
Davis also appeals the district court’s orders denying
his

motion

to

recommendation,
extension

of

stay
motion

time

to

the

magistrate

to
file

appoint

judge’s

counsel,

additional

memorandum
and

motion

pleadings.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

We

and
for
have

Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Wake

Cnty. Human Servs. v. Davis, No. 5:12-cv-00413-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr.
9, 2013; Apr. 22, 2013).
counsel.

We deny Davis’ motions to appoint

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2

Appeal: 13-1066

legal
before

Doc: 19

contentions
this

court

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3