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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1525 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY RICHARD DURHAM, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1525 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY RICHARD DURHAM, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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