UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1268
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
BABY J.F.D., c/o William S. Davis, II; ESTATE OF WILLIAM
SCOTT DAVIS, SR., Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALBERT J. SINGER; DANIELLE DOYLE; SYDNEY J. BATCH; BATCH,
POORE & WILLIAMS, LLP; MICHELE JAWORSKI SUAREZ; MELANIE A.
SHEKITA; MICHELLE SAVAGE; ERIC CRAIG CHASSE; LISA SELLERS;
CHARLOTTE MITCHELL; WENDY KIRWAN; SONJI CARLTON; NANCEY
BERSON; DR. SUSAN GARVEY; ROBERT B. RADAR; MARGARET EAGLES;
RICHARD CROUTHARMEL; WAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:13-cv-00007-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se. Roger Allen Askew,
WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; James
Nicholas Ellis, Lisa Patterson Sumner, POYNER SPRUILL LLP,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Sydney J. Batch, BATCH, POORE &
WILLIAMS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth A. Martineau,
MARTINEAU KING PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Peter Andrew
Teumer, ROBEY TEUMER & DRASH, Norfolk, Virginia; Allison Jean
Becker, YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, II, seeks to appeal several
postjudgment orders relating to a closed civil matter. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction in part and affirm
in part.
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).
Davis’ appeal is timely only as to the district court’s
order granting a consent motion for substitution of counsel.
Having reviewed the record and finding no reversible error, we
affirm the district court’s order.
Davis’ appeal is untimely as to all other orders he seeks
to challenge. The latest such order was entered on the docket
on October 20, 2015. Davis’ earliest notice of appeal was filed
on February 29, 2016. * Because Davis failed to file a timely
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on 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).
3
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the remainder of his appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. We deny Davis’ motion to remand. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4