**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1916** 

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT; TOWN OF CARY NORTH CAROLINA; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION , Defendants

- Appellees

.

**No. 14**  **- 1999** 

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II , Plaintiff

- Appellant , and BABY J.F.D., c/o William S. Davis, II; ESTATE OF WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, SR., Deceased , Plaintiffs,

v.
ALBERT J. SINGER; DANIELLE DOYLE; SYDNEY J. BATCH; MICHELE JAWORSKI SUAREZ; MELANIE A. SHEKITA; MICHELLE SAVAGE; ERIC CRAIG CHASSE; LISA SELLERS; CHARLOTTE MITCHELL; WENDY KIRWAN; SONJI CARLTON; NANCEY BERSON; DR. SUSAN GARVEY; ROBERT B. RADAR; MAR GARET EAGLES; RICHARD CROUTHARMEL; WAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT; BATCH, POORE & WILLIAMS , Defendants

- Appellees.2 **No. 14**  **- 2139** 

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT; TOWN OF CARY NORTH CAROLINA; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION , Defendants

- Appellees.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief Dis trict Judge. ( 4:13

- cv - 00058

- RBS

- DEM; 4: 13

- cv - 00007

- RBS

- DEM )

Submitted : May 28, 2015 Decided: June 25, 2015

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Nos. 14

- 1916 and 14

- 2139 dismissed; No. 14

- 1999 affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Roger Allen Askew, WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; James Nicholas Ellis, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Ro cky Mount, North Carolina; Caroline P. Mackie, Lisa Patterson Sumner, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth A. Martineau, MARTINEAU KING PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina ; Peter Andrew Teumer, ROBEY TEUMER & DRASH, Norfolk, Virginia; Sydney J. Batch, BATCH, POORE & WILLIAMS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Joseph Tedford McFadden, Jr., RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.4 PER CURIAM:
In th ese consolidated appeal s , William Scott Davis, Jr., challenges several district court orders. Although Davis’ appeals arise from two distinct complaints filed in the district court, his claims in both cases generally arise from the events leading up to the t ermination of his parental rights and his attempts to challenge the termination . We dismiss the appeals
in Nos. 14

- 1916 and 14

- 2139 for lack of jurisdiction. In No.
14

- 1999, we affirm the district court’s orders.
In Nos. 14

- 1916 and 14

- 2139, Davis seek s to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing three of five defendants from his complaint , in which he alleged claims under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act , and disposing of numerous
motions. This court may exercise jurisdiction on ly over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order s Davis seeks to appeal are neithe r final
order s nor appealable interlocutory or collateral order s . Accordingly, we dismiss the se two appeal s for lack of jurisdiction.
In No. 14

- 1999, Davis appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and d ismissing his

am ended complaint . We affirm this ruling. See Ashcroft v.5 Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Further, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as futile
Davis’ motions for leave to amend his complaint. See Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs. , 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders

. We deny all of Davis’ pending motions. 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.

Nos. 14

- 1916 and 14

- 2139 DISMISSED No. 14

- 1999 AFFIRMED