William Scott Davis, Jr. v. Department of State

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999835462-2]; denying Motion to supplement [999842653-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00058-RBS-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999864521]. Mailed to: Davis. [16-1298]

Appeal: 16-1298

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1298

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
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:

June 21, 2016

Decided:

June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1298

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William
court’s
relief

Scott

order
from

Davis,

denying

his

judgment,

and

additional motions.
over

final

Jr.,

orders,

seeks

motions
requests

to

for

appeal
recusal,

for

the

district

motions

permission

to

for
file

This court may exercise jurisdiction only
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

collateral

final
order.

order

nor

The order Davis seeks to appeal is
an

Accordingly,

appealable
we

deny

interlocutory
Davis’

motions

or
to

appoint counsel and to supplement the record, and dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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.
DISMISSED

2