William Davis, II v. Albert Singer, No. 15-2498 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2498 WILLIAM S. DAVIS, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, and BABY J.F.D., c/o William S. Davis, II;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: April 19, 2016 Decided: Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. April 21, 2016 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. Sydney J. Batch, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, II, appeals the district court’s order denying 4 motions for recusal, 19 motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and 49 other various motions relating to a closed civil matter. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Singer, No. 4:13-cv-00007-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 19, 2015 & entered Oct. 20, 2015). motions for appointment of counsel. We We deny Davis’ 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.