Filed: Apr. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2393 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00563-MSD-RJK) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Scott Davis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2393 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00563-MSD-RJK) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Scott Davis,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2393
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:16-cv-00563-MSD-RJK)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, II, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil rights action for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, deny Davis’ motions to vacate and for order
to show cause, and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by
the district court. Davis v. Unknown, No. 2:16−cv−00563−MSD−RJK
(E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 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.
DISMISSED
2