William Davis, II v. State of North Carolina, No. 13-1627 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1627 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II., and a Minor J.F.D as next best friend, Plaintiff - Appellant, v.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, II, appeals the district court s order dismissing his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Emergency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. § 22412254 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006). Davis also appeals motion the district court s orders appoint counsel and motion to stay. and find no reversible error. denying his to We have reviewed the record 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. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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.
