William Scott Davis, Jr. v. Melanie A. Shekita

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cv-00504-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999901240]. Mailed to: William Scott Davis Jr. FMC BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER P. O. Box 1600 Butner, NC 27509-0000. [16-1526]

Appeal: 16-1526

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1526

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., on behalf of and as next friend
of J.F.D., a minor,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
J.F.D., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
MELANIE A. SHEKITA, Individually and as a Wake County NC
Assistant District Attorney for the State of North Carolina;
MICHELLE SAVAGE, individually and as a Police Detective for
the Cary North Carolina Police Department; DANIELLE DOYLE,
individually and as a Wake County North Carolina Department
of Health and Human Services Child Protective Services
Social Worker; ERIC CRAIG CHASSE, individually and as a Wake
County North Carolina Family Court Judge; MIKE EASLEY,
individually and as Governor of the State of North Carolina;
BEVERLY PERDUE, individually and as Governor of the State of
North Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00504-H)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Decided:

August 1, 2016

Appeal: 16-1526

Doc: 10

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

Filed: 08/01/2016

HARRIS,

Pg: 2 of 3

Circuit

Judges,

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1526

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William

Scott

Davis,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s

order denying eight motions in a closed civil rights action.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Davis v. Shekita, No. 5:12−cv−00504−H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5,

2016).

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.

AFFIRMED

3