Davis v. Bousman et al
ORDER: The Court has ADOPTED the 13 Memorandum and Recommedation, and this action is DISMISSED. The following motions were dismissed as moot due to premature filing: 4 Motion for Extension of Time, 5 Motion to Change Venue, 7 Motion for Extension of Time, 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel, 9 Motion for Leave to File, 19 Motion for Extension of Time, 22 Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule 58, and 24 Motion for Recusal. Judge Fox has entered a pre-filing injunction against Mr . Davis. Although it does not apply to this complaint, it will apply to any future filings submitted by Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis may submit a notice of appeal to this order. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 3/10/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR. and (a minor)
J.F.D., Suing by, her and next friend,
JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN, Individually
and as a Juvenile State Court Judge North
Carolina, Wake County; et al.,
This matter is before the Court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of
United States Magistrate Judge James E. Gates [DE 13]. For the following reasons, the Court
ADOPTS the M&R. The matter is DISMISSED.
The present action is one in a litany of cases that Davis (who is clearly the principal, if
not only, actor behind this litigation) has attempted to bring in this and other courts in his pursuit
of a confusing and expansive array of claims arising out of proceedings in the state of North
Carolina involving plaintiffs custodial rights to his daughter and other related domestic matters.
The disorganized and sometime incoherent manner in which Davis has attempted to present his
claims in these actions, often through voluminous and repetitive filings, makes them, at best,
difficult to comprehend. A previous order by Senior United States District Judge James C. Fox
dismissing one of Davis's actions as frivolous sets forth an apt summary of the seemingly
boundless scope of the alleged transgressions against Davis:
As best the court can tell, most of [Davis's] "claims" are oriented around what he
alleges is a grand conspiracy involving the coordinated efforts of dozens, if not
hundreds, of public and private persons to deny him his custodial rights to his
daughter, convict him of fabricated criminal charges, perpetrate extensive fraud
on the state courts ofNorth Carolina, and otherwise destroy his life and violate his
rights under federal law. [Davis] appears to believe that this conspiracy is
primarily motivated by the defendants' discriminatory animus against him for,
inter alia, his gender, his race, his interracial marriage, and his interracial child.
11 June 2012 Order [DE 10] at 10-11, Davis v. State ofNC., No. 5-11-CT-3258-F (E.D.N.C.).
As a result of Davis's incessant attempts to raise the same frivolous claims in this Court,
Judge Fox entered a pre-filing injunction on March 3, 2014. 3 March Order [DE 54], Davis v.
Mitchel, No. 5:12-CV-493-F (E.D.N.C.). In that order, Judge Fox noted that Davis has filed a
total of nine cases in this Court and that five additional cases had been transferred to this Court
from the Eastern District of Virginia, and, further that "[a]lmost all of the actions have been
summarily dismissed or remanded." !d. at 2-3. The Eastern District of Virginia has also issued a
pre-filing injunction against Davis. 14 Nov. 2013 Order [DE 11], Davis v. Jaworski, et al., No.
4:13-CV-63 (E.D. Va.).
As defendant is proceeding in forma pauperis, Magistrate Judge Gates reviewed this
matter for frivolity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and recommended that the case be
dismissed as both frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Further, Magistrate
Judge Gates recommended that the matter is alternatively subject to dismissal as malicious
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
A district court is required to review an M&R de novo if the defendant specifically
objects to it or in cases of clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 14950 (1985). The district court is only required to make a de novo determination of those specific
findings to which the defendant has actually objected. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200
(4th Cir. 1983). Here, the plaintiff has filed a lengthy, rambling objection to the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation. [DE 20; 21]. The plaintiff later refiled the same document with a title
that clearly shows he has been submitting the same generalized objections to Magistrate Judge
Gates's M&Rs in multiple cases. [DE 25 at 1]. Plaintiffs objection to the M&R spends the
majority of its 26 pages discussing jurisdiction and remand, neither of which apply in this
instance. Plaintiff only bothers to spend a few pages of this lengthy objection on the issues on
which Magistrate Judge Gates recommends dismissal. Plaintiff objects that his complaints in this
Court are not malicious or redundant and were never filed in bad faith. [DE 20 at 18]. He argues
that the Court is biased and prejudiced against him and is "cherry picking" reasons to dismiss all
of his claims. [!d.]. After these brief, unsupported statements, plaintiff returns to arguments as to
removal and subject matter jurisdiction. [See DE 20 at 18-19]. He then states the law requiring
frivolity review and restates, several times, the federal pleading standards. [DE 20 at 20-21]. He
then rambles on to other, irrelevant points of law. [DE 20 at 21-22]. Plaintiff concludes by
stating that objects to "[A]ll [sic] of the findings, recommendations, and memorandums in [A]ll
[sic] the Orders, Memorandums, and Recommendations of Honorable Magistrate Judge James
Gates" and states that he wishes to have oral arguments via speakerphone. [DE 20 at 25-26].
Finally, he "gives notice of objection to all mater [sic] in the Order and M&R as to [several cases
in the Eastern District of North Carolina]". [DE 20 at 26].
Plaintiff offers no cognizable arguments in objection to the M&R, instead he offers only
unsupported statements. The M&R also recommends the dismissal as prematurely filed and moot
of several motions plaintiff filed before plaintiff was granted leaved to proceed with this action
without prepayment of the filing fee. Plaintiff fails to even mention this finding. Finding no
objections to the specific findings of the M&R, this Court considers whether the M&R is "clearly
erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Court finds no clear error in the
Magistrate Judge's decision, and therefore adopts the M&R. This action is dismissed and
pending motions [DE 4, 5, 7, 8, 9] are dismissed as prematurely filed and moot.
After the M&R was entered, but before this order was written, plaintiff filed several
additional motions in this action. [DE 19, 22, 24) 23, 25, 26, 27]. DE 19 is a motion for an
extension of time to file a response to the M&R. This motion is denied as moot. DE 22 is a
motion pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 58 which argue~ that plaintiff should have been given time to
amend his complaint before it was dismissed for failure to state a claim. This motion is dismissed
as prematurely filed and moot as his case is not dismissed until this order is entered. DE 24
moves for the recusal of Magistrate Judge Gates. As plaintiffs complaint is being dismissed
here, Magistrate Judge Gates is no longer a part of it, and therefore, DE 24 is denied as moot. DE
23, 25, 26, and 27 all purport to appeal the M&R to the Fourth Circuit. The Court has interpreted
them as appeals of the M&R to the District C~urt as is proper. However, the Court has
considered and affirmed the M&R, and therefore th¢se motions are denied as moot.
On March 3, 2014, Judge Fox entered a prer-filing injunction against Mr. Davis. Davis v.
Mitchel, No. 5:12-CV-493-F (E.D.N.C.). Although it does not apply to this complaint, it will
apply to any future filings submitted by Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis may submit a notice of appeal of
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations,
and DISMISSES this action. All pending motions! are dismissed or denied as delineated above
and are to be terminated by the Clerk. The Clerk ~s directed to enter judgment accordingly and
close the file.
day of March, 2014.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?