William Davis, II v. Albert Singer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to remand case [999807230-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00007-RBS-DEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999830005]. Mailed to: S. Batch, W. Davis, II, P. Teumer. [16-1268]

Appeal: 16-1268

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1268

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; BATCH,
POORE & WILLIAMS, LLP; 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,
Defendants - Appellees.

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-00007-RBS-DEM)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Appeal: 16-1268

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Roger Allen Askew,
WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; James
Nicholas Ellis, 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; Allison Jean
Becker, YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1268

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
William

Scott

Davis,

II,

postjudgment

orders

relating

to

seeks
a

closed

to

appeal

civil

several

matter.

We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction in part and affirm
in part.
Parties

are

accorded

30

days

after

the

entry

of

the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

“[T]he timely

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.”

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Davis’ appeal is timely only as to the district court’s
order granting a consent motion for substitution of counsel.
Having reviewed the record and finding no reversible error, we
affirm the district court’s order.
Davis’ appeal is untimely as to all other orders he seeks
to challenge.

The latest such order was entered on the docket

on October 20, 2015.

Davis’ earliest notice of appeal was filed

on February 29, 2016. *

Because Davis failed to file a timely

*For

the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

3

Appeal: 16-1268

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the remainder of his appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.

We deny Davis’ motion to remand.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4