Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01526/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01526-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1526

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., on behalf of and as next friend 

of J.F.D., a minor,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

J.F.D., a minor,

Plaintiff,

v.

MELANIE A. SHEKITA, Individually and as a Wake County NC 

Assistant District Attorney for the State of North Carolina; 

MICHELLE SAVAGE, individually and as a Police Detective for 

the Cary North Carolina Police Department; DANIELLE DOYLE, 

individually and as a Wake County North Carolina Department 

of Health and Human Services Child Protective Services 

Social Worker; ERIC CRAIG CHASSE, individually and as a Wake 

County North Carolina Family Court Judge; MIKE EASLEY, 

individually and as Governor of the State of North Carolina; 

BEVERLY PERDUE, individually and as Governor of the State of 

North Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00504-H)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016

Appeal: 16-1526 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1526 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying eight motions in a closed civil rights action. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Davis v. Shekita, No. 5:12−cv−00504−H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 

2016). 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.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-1526 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3