Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

William Davis, Jr. v. Richard Durham, 16-1525 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1525 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1525 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY RICHARD DURHAM, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00036-H) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 16-1525


WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

ATTORNEY RICHARD DURHAM,

                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00036-H)


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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

     William     Scott   Davis,   Jr.,    appeals   the   district     court’s

order denying six motions in his 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. Durham, No. 5:11−cv−00036−H (E.D.N.C.

Apr. 5, 2016).      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