Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0420-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF CARY NORTH CAROLINA; Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor; State of North Carolina; Wake County Public School System; Patti Head; North Carolina Department Of Health & Human Services; Albert Singer, Wake County North Carolina County Attorney; Triangle Family Services; Miles Wright, Interim CEO, Defendants-Appellees. William Scott Davis, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott I. Wilkinson, Defendant-Appellee. Wake County Human Services, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Scott Davis, II, Defendant-Appellant. William Scott Davis, II, and (a minor) J.F.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Monica M. Bousman, individually and as Juvenile State Court Judge North Carolina, Wake County; Erick Chasse Chasse, individually and as a Juvenile State Court Judge, North Carolina, Wake County; James Fullwood, individually and a Juvenile State Court Judge, North Carolina, Wake County; Robert B. Radar, individually and as a Juvenile State Court Judge, North Carolina, Wake County 10th Judicial District, Chief District Judge; Margaret Eagles, individually and a Juvenile of the State of North Carolina, 10th Judicial District; Beverly Purdue, individually and as Governor of the State of North Carolina; John C. Martin, individually and a Chief Judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Chief of the N. C. Judicial Standards Commission, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-1377, No. 16-1378, No. 16-1380, No. 16-1381
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 28, 2016
    Decided: August 1, 2016
    William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to set aside the judgments in four closed civil cases. Davis argued in his notice of appeal, and the record suggests, that he did not timely receive notice of the entry of the district court’s order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A). Because the 30-day appeal period is jurisdictional, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007), we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether to reopen the time to file an appeal, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

REMANDED