Michael Davis v. Brian Ratledge

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2074

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: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 27, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Scott Davis and Stetson Mansfield Webster, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Appellants, Michael Scott Davis and Stetson Mansfield Webster, appeal the district
court’s text order denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the
court’s order dismissing Appellants’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*
We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. Davis v. Ratledge, No. 5:24-cv -00440-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2025). 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

*
To the extent Appellants seek to appeal the underlying dismissal order, that order
is not before us. The district court’s dismissal order was entered on March 5, 2025, and
Appellants filed their Rule 60(b) motion on July 7, 2005, more than 28 days later. Cf. MLC
Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-78 (4th Cir. 2008) (noting that motion
filed within time for filing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) stays the appeal period, while one filed
outside the time period does not). Therefore, the notice of appeal, filed on September 3,
2025, is timely only as to the order denying Appellants’ Rule 60(b) motion. See In re:
Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992) (noting, in ruling on appeal from denial of Rule
60(b) motion, this Court “may not review the merits of the underlying order”).