IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
CHARLOTTE P. DAVIS a/k/a CHARLOTTE 
POOLE DAVIS, 
                   Plaintiff, 
v. 
OSBERT POTTER, Former Lt. Governor of 
the Virgin Islands, TREGENZA ROACH, Lt. 
Governor of the Virgin Islands, ALBERT 
BRYAN, JR., Governor of the Virgin Islands, 
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, 
                   Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
 
)                 Case No. 1:22-cv-0062 
)                
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
JUDGMENT1 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 
issued by Magistrate Judge Emile A. Henderson III, filed on August 7, 2024. (ECF No. 132.) 
Magistrate Judge Henderson recommended that: (1) Defendants Osbert Potter, Tregenza 
Roach, and Albert Bryan Jr.’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 110, on 
the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action be granted; (2) Plaintiff Charlotte P. Davis’ (“Plaintiff”) 
cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 117, on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action be 
denied; (3) the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the slander of title 
cause of action; (4) the declaratory judgment and preliminary/permanent injunction2 
“causes of action” be dismissed; and (5) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 102, 
 
1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority 
as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 
2 On March 30, 2024, Judge Wilma A. Lewis previously denied Plaintiff’s amended motion for a preliminary 
injunction, ECF No. 16, and Plaintiff’s initial motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 7. (ECF No. 91.) 
Nonetheless, Plaintiff continued to include a preliminary injunction as relief sought in her amended pleading. 
(ECF No. 102.) 
Case: 1:22-cv-00062-RAM-EAH     Document #: 138     Filed: 03/31/26     Page 1 of 3
Davis v. Potter 
Case No. 1:22-cv-0062 
Order 
Page 2 of 3 
 
be dismissed. Id. at 37-38. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the R&R on August 21, 2024.3 
(ECF No. 133.) The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an 
independent determination finding no error.4 Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Plaintiff Charlotte P. Davis’ Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 
and Recommendation, filed on August 21, 2024, ECF No. 133, is OVERRULED; it is further  
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 132, is 
APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further 
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on June 3, 2024, ECF 
No. 110, is GRANTED; it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on June 13, 
2024, ECF No. 117, is DENIED; it is further 
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of 
Defendants Osbert Potter, Tregenza Roach, and Albert Bryan Jr. and against Plaintiff on her 
claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 
102; and it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s slander of title cause of action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 
PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction; it is further 
 
3 Defendants filed a timely reply to the Objections on September 3, 2024. (ECF No. 134.)  
4 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to 
make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de 
novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 
1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the 
proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided 
on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s 
reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted).  
Case: 1:22-cv-00062-RAM-EAH     Document #: 138     Filed: 03/31/26     Page 2 of 3
Davis v. Potter 
Case No. 1:22-cv-0062 
Order 
Page 3 of 3 
 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for relief in the form of a declaratory judgment or a 
preliminary injunction is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted; it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on April 23, 2024, ECF No. 
102, is DISMISSED; it is further 
ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Plaintiff Charlotte P. Davis at 
her last known address provided to the Court by certified mail return receipt requested and 
that a copy of the return receipt shall be filed on the docket; and it is further 
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.  
 
Dated: March 31, 2026 
 
 
 
/s/ Robert A. Molloy  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Judge 
Case: 1:22-cv-00062-RAM-EAH     Document #: 138     Filed: 03/31/26     Page 3 of 3