UNPUBLISHED

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; MARGARET 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.

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-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 

unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Rocky 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 these consolidated appeals, 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 termination 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 seeks 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 only 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 orders Davis seeks to appeal are neither final 

orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 

Accordingly, we dismiss these two appeals for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

In No. 14-1999, Davis appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing his 

amended 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