Case Name: William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Social Security Administration, Defendants-Appellees, and State of North Carolina; Wake County North Carolina Municipal Government; Town of Cary North Carolina, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-02
Citations: 675 F. App'x 337
Docket Number: No. 16-2233
Parties: William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Social Security Administration, Defendants-Appellees, and State of North Carolina; Wake County North Carolina Municipal Government; Town of Cary North Carolina, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Social Security Administration, Defendants-Appellees, and State of North Carolina; Wake County North Carolina Municipal Government; Town of Cary North Carolina, Defendants.
No. 16-2233
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 31, 2017
Decided: February 2, 2017
William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Peter Andrew Teumer, ROBEY TEU-MER & DRASH, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his Freedom of Information Act complaint and imposing upon him a prefíling review system for future civil actions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Dep't of State, No. 4:13-cv-00058-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2016). We deny all of Davis' pending motions, including his motions to remand, to vacate, to appoint counsel, and to appoint a guardian ad li-tem. 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