In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE v. Michael Dell Grice

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2508
In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE,
Debtor,
-------------------------------
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Creditor – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL DELL GRICE,
Debtor,
CLARA P. SWANSON,
Trustee.
No. 15-2512
In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE,
Debtor,
-------------------------------
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II,
Creditor – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL DELL GRICE,
Debtor,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
CLARA P. SWANSON,
Trustee.
No. 15-2537
In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE,
Debtor,
-------------------------------
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II,
Creditor – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL DELL GRICE,
Debtor,
CLARA P. SWANSON,
Trustee.
No. 15-2538
In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE,
Debtor,
-------------------------------
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II,
Creditor – Appellant,
v.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
MICHAEL DELL GRICE,
Debtor,
CLARA P. SWANSON,
Trustee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:15-cv-00059-RBS-DEM; 4:15-cv-00077-
RBS-DEM)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: July 5, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steve Clayton
Taylor, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE C. TAYLOR, PC, Chesapeake,
Virginia, for Debtor.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr.,
appeals the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy
court’s orders returning several documents that Davis attempted
to file in a closed bankruptcy matter. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. In re Grice, No.
4:15-cv-00059-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 10 & entered Nov. 12,
2015); In re Grice, No. 4:15-cv-00077-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed
Nov. 10 & entered Nov. 12, 2015). We deny Davis’ motion to
supplement and motions for appointment of counsel. 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

-- 4 of 4 --