William Davis, II v. Albert Singer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00007-RBS-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999319269].. [13-2505, 13-2523]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-2505 Doc: 92 Filed: 03/20/2014 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2505 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II; J.F.D., c/o William S. Davis, II; ESTATE OF WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, SR., Deceased, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ALBERT J. SINGER; DANIELLE DOYLE; SYDNEY J. BATCH; BATCH POORE AND WILLIAMS; MICHELE JAWORSKI SUAREZ; MELANIE A. SHEKITA; MICHELLE SAVAGE; ERIC CRAIG CHASSE; LISA SELLERS; CHARLOTTE MITCHELL; WENDY KIRWAN; SONJI CARLTON; NANCEY BERSON; SUSAN GARVEY, Doctor; ROBERT RADAR; MARGARET EAGLES; RICHARD CROUTHARMEL; WAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Defendants - Appellees. No. 13-2523 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT; TOWN OF CARY NORTH CAROLINA; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal: 13-2505 Doc: 92 Filed: 03/20/2014 Pg: 2 of 4 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:13-cv-00007-RBS-DEM; 4:13-cv-00058RBS-DEM) Submitted: March 14, 2014 Decided: March 20, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se. James Nicholas Ellis, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Rocky Mount, North Carolina; Caroline P. Mackie, Lisa Patterson Sumner, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Sydney J. Batch, BATCH, POORE & WILLIAMS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth A. Martineau, MARTINEAU KING PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Peter Andrew Teumer, ROBEY TEUMER & DRASH, Norfolk, Virginia; Joseph Tedford McFadden, Jr., RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, Norfolk, Virginia; Ryan Michael Shuirman, YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Roger A. Askew, WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 13-2505 Doc: 92 Filed: 03/20/2014 Pg: 3 of 4 consolidated appeals, PER CURIAM: In these William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal two orders of the district court issued in ongoing proceedings below. The orders in question ruled on a number of pending motions and deferred action on other motions. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders nor Davis seeks to appeal are neither final appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. orders Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Davis’ motions to file documents under seal for failure to comply with 4th Circuit Rule 25(c). We also deny Davis’ motions to appoint counsel, motion for extension of time, motion for interlocutory order, motion for interlocutory appeal, motion to exceed the length limitations in his informal brief, motions for stay pending appeal, motion to expand a certificate of appealability, and all other pending motions. We also note that Davis’ excessive and lengthy electronic filings constitute an abuse of the court’s electronic filing system operation. and impair the efficiency of the court’s We advise Davis that further abuse of his electronic 3 Appeal: 13-2505 Doc: 92 Filed: 03/20/2014 Pg: 4 of 4 filing status will result in limitations on his use and possible sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 4

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?