Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

William Scott Davis, II v. James A. Hunt, 15-2476 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-2476 Visitors: 5
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2476 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES A. HUNT, Defendant - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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                               UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer