Michael Scott Davis; Stetson Mansfield Webster v. Brian Ratledge, in his official

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2135
MICHAEL SCOTT DAVIS; STETSON MANSFIELD WEBSTER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BRIAN RATLEDGE, in his official and individual capacity; JENNIFER
BEDFORD, in her official and individual capacity; JULIE BELL, in her official and
individual capacity; DAMION MCCULLERS, in his official and individual
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00440-FL)
Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 28, 2025
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Scott Davis, Stetson Mansfield Webster, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Scott Davis and Stetson Mansfield Webster seek to appeal the district
court’s order denying their motions for declaratory relief and leave to file a supplemental
complaint. We deny Davis’s motion to expedite, and we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The portion of the order
denying leave to file a supplemental complaint is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, in part, for lack of
jurisdiction.
We do, however, have jurisdiction to review the portion of the order denying the
Appellants’ motion for emergency declaratory relief. Upon review, we discern no error in
the district court’s ruling that the Rooker-Feldman* doctrine precluded the court from
granting declaratory relief. We therefore affirm the order to the extent that it denied
declaratory relief. Davis v. Ratledge, No. 5:24-cv-00440-FL (W.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 2024).
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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART
* D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263
U.S. 413 (1923).

-- 2 of 2 --