Case ID: f-appx_685/html/0238-01.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 L. 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: March 7, 2017
    Decided: April 19, 2017
    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   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment in four closed civil cases. We have reviewed the record and find that these appeals are frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated .by the district court. Davis v. Town of Cary N.C., No. 5:08-cv-00176-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2016). We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, including his motions for stay, for appointment of counsel, and for appointment of a guardian ad litem.

Davis has a long history of filing pro se appeals and other actions in this court. He has filed more than 100 such cases since the beginning of 2014. In none of these actions has he yet been granted relief. On January 27, 2017, by order to show cause, Davis was ordered to show why he should not be sanctioned for filing frivolous appeals, motions, and other documents, and why he should not be enjoined from future filings.

Having reviewed Davis’ response to our order, we find his arguments unpersuasive and conclude that a prefiling review system is warranted in light of Davis’ utter disregard for the limited resources of this court. See In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943, 945-46 (4th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Accordingly, we enjoin Davis from filing any civil appeal in this court unless a district court judge has certified that the appeal is not frivolous. We further enjoin Davis, in any civil matter, from filing any original action, petition, or motion in this court unless this court has certified that the filing is not frivolous. Any document failing to meet these requirements will be returned to Davis without being placed on the court’s docket.

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.

DISMISSED