USCA4 Appeal: 24-2135 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2135 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 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,

, and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

(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,

(1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.,

(1923).

2