Wake County Human Services v. William Davis, II, No. 13-1066 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1066 WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II, Defendants - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:12-cv-00413-BO) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, Jr., appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. order remanding a case to state reviewable on appeal or otherwise. The Supreme appellate Court review has remand is generally not 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). limited those court An § 1447(d) orders to based insulate on the from grounds specified in § 1447(c): a defect in the removal procedure or a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ins. Co., district 517 U.S. court 706, remanded 711-12 the Quackenbush v. Allstate (1996). case because matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. does not implicate § 1443. In it this case, lacked the subject Moreover, this case Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Davis also appeals the district court s orders denying his motion to recommendation, extension of stay motion time to the magistrate to file appoint judge s counsel, additional memorandum and motion pleadings. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We and for have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wake Cnty. Human Servs. v. Davis, No. 5:12-cv-00413-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 2013; Apr. 22, 2013). counsel. We deny Davis motions to appoint We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 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.