Willie Asbury v. John Kinard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999381453-2] Originating case number: 8:13-cv-03364-RMG-JDA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999428000]. Mailed to: W. Asbury. [14-6639, 14-6731]

Appeal: 14-6639

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/03/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6639

WILLIE JAMES ASBURY, a/k/a Sa’id Abdullah al’Rashid,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN KINARD;
NORTON,

JAMES

BARBER,

III;

JOSEPH

MCCROREY;

DAVID

Defendants - Appellees,
and
DAVID TARTARSKY; DON DRISKELL; JOETTE SCARBOROUGH;
DENNIS
BUSH; SHARONDA SUTTON; GREGORY WASHINGTON; J. TOMARCHIO;
NURSE SMITH; NURSE MONROE; LT COPELAND; SGT CUNNINGHAM,
Defendants.

No. 14-6731

WILLIE JAMES ASBURY, a/k/a Sa’id Abdullah al’Rashid,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID TARTARSKY; DON DRISKELL; JOETTE SCARBOROUGH; DENNIS
BUSH; SHARONDA SUTTON; GREGORY WASHINGTON; J. TOMARCHIO;
NURSE SMITH; NURSE MONROE; LT. COPELAND; SGT. CUNNINGHAM,
Defendants - Appellees,
and

Appeal: 14-6639

Doc: 25

JOHN KINARD;
NORTON,

Filed: 09/03/2014

JAMES

BARBER,

Pg: 2 of 4

III;

JOSEPH

MCCROREY;

DAVID

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Anderson.
Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (8:13-cv-03364-RMG-JDA)

Submitted:

August 28, 2014

Decided:

September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Willie James Asbury, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson,
II, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-6639

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/03/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In
challenges

these
the

consolidated
district

appeals,

court’s

Willie

order

J.

Asbury

adopting

the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion
for a preliminary injunction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

Asbury also

challenges several of the district court’s and the magistrate
judge’s non-dispositive orders.

We affirm in part and dismiss

in part.
We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for
abuse

of

discretion.

WV

Ass’n

of

Club

Owners

&

Fraternal

Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009).
Among

other

things,

“[a]

plaintiff

seeking

a

preliminary

injunction must establish that he is likely to . . . suffer
irreparable
Winter v.
(2008).
its

harm

Natural

in
Res.

the

absence

Def.

of

Council,

preliminary
Inc.,

555

relief.”

U.S.

7,

20

Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse

discretion

in

requisite showing.

finding

that

Asbury

failed

to

make

the

We therefore affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Asbury v. Tartarsky, No. 8:13-cv-03364-

RMG-JDA (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 2014).
Additionally,

this

court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
3

Appeal: 14-6639

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/03/2014

337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
seeks

to

appeal

interlocutory

are

or

Pg: 4 of 4

The non-dispositive orders Asbury

neither

collateral

final

orders.

orders

nor

appealable

Accordingly,

we

grant

Appellees’ motion and dismiss this portion of the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.

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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4