UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2508 In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE, Debtor, ------------------------------- WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Creditor – Appellant, v. MICHAEL DELL GRICE, Debtor, CLARA P. SWANSON, Trustee. No. 15-2512 In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE, Debtor, ------------------------------- WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II, Creditor – Appellant, v. MICHAEL DELL GRICE, Debtor, CLARA P. SWANSON, Trustee. No. 15-2537 In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE, Debtor, ------------------------------- WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II, Creditor – Appellant, v. MICHAEL DELL GRICE, Debtor, CLARA P. SWANSON, Trustee. No. 15-2538 In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE, Debtor, ------------------------------- WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II, Creditor – Appellant, v. 2 MICHAEL DELL GRICE, Debtor, CLARA P. SWANSON, Trustee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:15-cv-00059-RBS-DEM; 4:15-cv-00077- RBS-DEM) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: July 5, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steve Clayton Taylor, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE C. TAYLOR, PC, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Debtor. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders returning several documents that Davis attempted to file in a closed bankruptcy matter. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. In re Grice, No. 4:15-cv-00059-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 10 & entered Nov. 12, 2015); In re Grice, No. 4:15-cv-00077-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 10 & entered Nov. 12, 2015). We deny Davis’ motion to supplement and motions for appointment of 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 4