William Davis, Jr. v. W. Earl Britt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [1000016303-2], denying Motion for other relief [1000000406-2], denying Motion for other relief [999994655-2], denying Motion for other relief [999994231-2], denying Motion for other relief [999978977-2], denying Motion for other relief [999971133-2], denying Motion for other relief [999968453-2], denying Motion for other relief [999959976-2], denying Motion for other relief [999953711-3], denying Motion for other relief [999952787-2]; denying Motion for leave to file [1000008680-2]; denying Motion to exceed length limitations [1000008680-3]; denying Motion to reconsider [999994235-2]; denying Motion to remand case [999993896-2], denying Motion to remand case [999977130-2], denying Motion to remand case [999966389-2], denying Motion to remand case [999953711-2] Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03211-CO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031043]. Mailed to: William Scott Davis, Jr. [16-2062]

Appeal: 16-2062

Doc: 63

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2062

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
W. EARL BRITT; JAMES C. FOX; JAMES C. DEVER, III; LOUISE W.
FLANAGAN; TERRENCE W. BOYLE; MALCOLM J. HOWARD; JAMES C.
GATES; REBECCA BEACH SMITH,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (5:16-ct-03211-CO)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2062

Doc: 63

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William

Scott

Davis,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s

order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) his complaint
filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

We have reviewed the

record and find that this appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.
Davis v. Britt, No. 5:16-ct-03211-CO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2016).
We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, including his motions to
remand,

to

recusal,
argument.
legal
before

appoint

for

leave

a
to

guardian
file

ad

litem,

supplemental

to

reconsider,

brief,

and

for

for
oral

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

2