Filed: Aug. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2476 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES A. HUNT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00035-D) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2476 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES A. HUNT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00035-D) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2476
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES A. HUNT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00035-D)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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., appeals the district court’s
orders denying his motions to reopen and to amend the judgment
in a closed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Hunt,
No. 5:11-cv-00035-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 2015; Nov. 23, 2015). We
deny Davis’ motions 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.
AFFIRMED
2