UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1627
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II., and a “Minor J.F.D” as next best
friend,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, “Pat McCory” individually and as
Governor; WAKE COUNTY N.C., DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
“Ramon Rojano” individually and as Director; WAKE COUNTY
N.C., FAMILY COURT, “Donald Steven” Chief Superior Court
Judge 10th Judicial District of Wake County North Carolina
individually and in his official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-1715
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II, and a “Minor J.F.D” as next best
friend,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, “Pat McCory” individually and as
Governor; WAKE COUNTY N.C., DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
“Ramon Rojano” individually and as Director; WAKE COUNTY
N.C., FAMILY COURT, “Donald Steven” Chief Superior Court
Judge, 10th Judicial District of Wake County North Carolina,
individually and in his official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:13-cv-00055-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, II, appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Emergency Motion for Return of Child Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241-
2254” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006). Davis also
appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to
appoint counsel and motion to stay. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. North Carolina,
No. 4:13-cv-00055-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. May 6, 2013; May 14, 2013).
We deny Davis’ motions to appoint 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
3