Wake County Human Services v. William Davis, II

530 F. App'x 272
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 25, 2013
Docket13-1066
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 530 F. App'x 272 (Wake County Human Services v. William Davis, II) 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
Wake County Human Services v. William Davis, II, 530 F. App'x 272 (4th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An order remanding a case to state court is generally not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). The Supreme Court has limited § 1447(d) to insulate from appellate review those remand orders based on the grounds specified in § 1447(c): a defect in the removal procedure or a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Qua ckenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996). In this case, the district court remanded the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. Moreover, this case does not implicate § 1443. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Davis also appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to stay the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation, motion to appoint counsel, and motion for extension of time to file additional pleadings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wake Cnty. Human Servs. v. Davis, No. 5:12-cv-00413-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 2013; Apr. 22, 2013). We deny Davis’ motions to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument be *273 cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

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

Related

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR v. DANT
M.D. North Carolina, 2025
LUND v. PAUL L. DUNBAR GROUP
M.D. North Carolina, 2021
Wake County Human Services v. Davis
546 F. App'x 250 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
530 F. App'x 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wake-county-human-services-v-william-davis-ii-ca4-2013.