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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?