William Davis, Jr. v. Town of Cary North Carolina , 690 F. App'x 825 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2019
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF CARY NORTH CAROLINA; HAROLD WEINBRECHT, Mayor;
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM; MRS. PATTI HEAD; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Wake County Human Services; ALBERT
SINGER, Wake County North Carolina County Attorney; TRIANGLE FAMILY
SERVICES; MILES WRIGHT, Interim CEO,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 16-2020
WAKE COUNTY NC HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-2021
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCOTT L. WILKINSON,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-2023
WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
2
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00176-BO; 5:14-cv-00047-BO;
5:11-cv-00031-BO; 5:14-cv-00046-BO; 5:12-cv-00413-BO)
Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 16-2020 and 16-2022 dismissed, Nos. 16-2019, 16-2021, and 16-2023 affirmed by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
order denying his motion to alter the judgments in three closed civil cases (Nos. 16-2019,
16-2021, and 16-2023). Davis also seeks to appeal the district court’s order and
judgment remanding a family matter to state court (No. 16-2020) and its order denying
his motion to set aside the judgment in a separate civil matter (No. 16-2022).
Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s judgment in No. 16-2020 was entered on the docket on
March 27, 2014. The district court’s order underlying No. 16-2022 was entered on the
docket on May 27, 2016. Both these appeals arise from a single notice of appeal that
Davis filed on August 31, 2016. * Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss Nos. 16-2020 and
16-2022 for lack of jurisdiction.
*
Because the notice of appeal is undated, we assume that the postmark date
appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have
been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c);
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
4
Turning to Davis’ three remaining appeals, we have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Nos. 16-2019, 16-2021, and 16-2023 for the
reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Town of Cary, No. 5:08-cv-00176-BO
(E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2016). We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, including his
motions to appoint counsel, to remand, and to appoint a guardian ad litem. 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.
NOS. 16-2020, 16-2022 DISMISSED;
NOS. 16-2019, 16-2021, 16-2023 AFFIRMED
5