William Davis, Jr. v. Department of State
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying all pending motions. Originating case numbers: 4:13-cv-00058-RBS-DEM, 4:13-cv-00007-RBS-DEM. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999609256]. Mailed to: William Davis, Sydney Batch, Joseph McFadden, and Peter Teumer. [14-1916, 14-1999, 14-2139]--[Docket Text-Name of Mail Recipient-Edited 06/25/2015 by ALC]
Appeal: 14-1916
Doc: 206
Filed: 06/25/2015
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1916
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.
No. 14-1999
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
BABY
J.F.D., c/o William S. Davis, II; ESTATE OF WILLIAM
SCOTT DAVIS, SR., Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALBERT J. SINGER; DANIELLE DOYLE; SYDNEY J. BATCH; MICHELE
JAWORSKI SUAREZ; MELANIE A. SHEKITA; MICHELLE SAVAGE; ERIC
CRAIG CHASSE; LISA SELLERS; CHARLOTTE MITCHELL; WENDY
KIRWAN; SONJI CARLTON; NANCEY BERSON; DR. SUSAN GARVEY;
ROBERT B. RADAR; MARGARET EAGLES; RICHARD CROUTHARMEL; WAKE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT; BATCH, POORE & WILLIAMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal: 14-1916
Doc: 206
Filed: 06/25/2015
Pg: 2 of 5
No. 14-2139
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.
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-00058-RBS-DEM; 4:13-cv-00007RBS-DEM)
Submitted:
May 28, 2015
Decided:
June 25, 2015
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 14-1916 and 14-2139 dismissed;
unpublished per curiam opinion.
No.
14-1999
affirmed
by
William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.
George Maralan
Kelley,
III,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia; Roger Allen Askew, WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina; James Nicholas Ellis, POYNER SPRUILL
LLP, Rocky Mount, North Carolina; Caroline P. Mackie, Lisa
Patterson Sumner, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Elizabeth A. Martineau, MARTINEAU KING PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Peter Andrew Teumer, ROBEY TEUMER & DRASH, Norfolk,
Virginia; Sydney J. Batch, BATCH, POORE & WILLIAMS, LLP,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Joseph Tedford McFadden, Jr., RAWLS,
MCNELIS & MITCHELL, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
2
Appeal: 14-1916
Doc: 206
Filed: 06/25/2015
Pg: 3 of 5
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
Appeal: 14-1916
Doc: 206
Filed: 06/25/2015
Pg: 4 of 5
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr.,
challenges
several
district
court
orders.
Although
Davis’
appeals arise from two distinct complaints filed in the district
court, his claims in both cases generally arise from the events
leading up to the termination of his parental rights and his
attempts to challenge the termination.
We dismiss the appeals
in Nos. 14-1916 and 14-2139 for lack of jurisdiction.
In No.
14-1999, we affirm the district court’s orders.
In
Nos.
14-1916
and
14-2139,
Davis
seeks
to
appeal
the
district court’s orders dismissing three of five defendants from
his complaint, in which he alleged claims under the Freedom of
Information Act and the Privacy Act, and disposing of numerous
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, 54546 (1949).
orders
The orders Davis seeks to appeal are neither final
nor
Accordingly,
appealable
we
dismiss
interlocutory
these
two
or
collateral
appeals
for
orders.
lack
of
jurisdiction.
In No. 14-1999, Davis appeals the district court’s order
granting
Defendants’
amended complaint.
motions
to
dismiss
and
We affirm this ruling.
4
dismissing
his
See Ashcroft v.
Appeal: 14-1916
Doc: 206
Filed: 06/25/2015
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Pg: 5 of 5
Further, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as futile
Davis’ motions for leave to amend his complaint.
See Equal
Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir.
2010).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
We deny all of Davis’ pending motions.
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with
contentions
this
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Nos. 14-1916 and 14-2139 DISMISSED
No. 14-1999 AFFIRMED
5
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?