Filed: Aug. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1776 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., and a minor JFD as next best friend, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHELLE JOY JAWORSKI; MELANIE A. SHEKITA; JEFF FORD; TONY BELL; OTHER UNKNOWN UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE AGENTS DEFENDANT’S, 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-00063-RBS-DEM) Submitte
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1776 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., and a minor JFD as next best friend, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHELLE JOY JAWORSKI; MELANIE A. SHEKITA; JEFF FORD; TONY BELL; OTHER UNKNOWN UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE AGENTS DEFENDANT’S, 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-00063-RBS-DEM) Submitted..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1776
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., and a minor JFD as next best
friend,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHELLE JOY JAWORSKI; MELANIE A. SHEKITA; JEFF FORD; TONY
BELL; OTHER UNKNOWN UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
AGENTS DEFENDANT’S,
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-00063-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006) and ordering
him to show cause why a system of prefiling review should not be
imposed upon him. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Davis seeks to appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. We deny Davis’ motion to appoint counsel. 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