Davis v. Britt

Fourth Circuit

Davis v. Britt

678 F. App'x 116

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2017

DocketNo. 16-2062

StatusPublished

This text of 678 F. App'x 116 (Davis v. Britt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Britt, 678 F. App'x 116 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for. the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Britt, No. 5:16-ct-03211-CO, 2016 WL 4767464 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2016). We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, including his motions to remand, to appoint a guardian ad litem, to reconsider, for recu-sal, for leave to file supplemental brief, and for oral argument. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for. the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Britt, No. 5:16-ct-03211-CO, 2016 WL 4767464 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2016). We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, including his motions to remand, to appoint a guardian ad litem, to reconsider, for recu-sal, for leave to file supplemental brief, and for oral argument. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 F. App'x 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-britt-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack