William Scott Davis, II v. Department of State

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00058-RBS-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999764002]. Mailed to: Davis. [15-2504]

Appeal: 15-2504

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2504

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WAKE COUNTY NORTH
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT; TOWN OF CARY NORTH CAROLINA,

CAROLINA

Defendants.

Appeal 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)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, II,
Kelley,
III,
Assistant
Virginia, for Appellees.

Appellant Pro Se.
George Maralan
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,

Appeal: 15-2504

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2504

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William
court’s
relief

Scott

order
from

Davis,

denying

his

judgment,

and

additional motions.
over

final

II,

seeks

motions
requests

to

for

appeal
recusal,

for

the

district

motions

permission

to

for
file

This court may exercise jurisdiction only

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).
neither

a

final

order

nor

The order Davis seeks to appeal is
an

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction.

We dispense with oral argument because the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3