Willie Asbury v. David Tartarsky

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-03364-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999658964]. Mailed to: Willie J. Asbury. [15-6650]

Appeal: 15-6650

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6650

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; DR. J. TOMARCHIO;
NURSE SMITH, a/k/a Takisha Smith; NURSE MONROE, a/k/a Yvonne
Munro; LIEUTENANT COPELAND, a/k/a Dock Copeland, IV;
SERGEANT CUNNINGHAM, a/k/a Patricia Cunningham,
Defendants – Appellees,
JOHN KINARD;
NORTON,

JAMES

BARBER,

III;

JOSEPH

MCCROREY;

DAVID

Defendants.

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

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided:

September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie J. Asbury, Appellant Pro Se.

William Henry Davidson, II,

Appeal: 15-6650

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Todd Russell Flippin, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6650

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Willie

James

Asbury

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.

The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

recommended

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

that

relief

be

(2012).
denied

The
and

magistrate

advised

judge

Asbury

that

failure to file objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate

review

of

a

district

court

order

based

upon

the

recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have
been warned of the consequences of noncompliance.

Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140

(1985).

By

failing

to

file

specific

objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation with regard
to some of his claims, after receiving proper notice, Asbury has
waived appellate review of those claims.
With regard to the claims to which Asbury filed specific
objections,

we

reversible error.
district

court.

have

reviewed

the

record

and

discern

no

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
Asbury

(D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015).

v.

Tartarsky,

No.

8:13-cv-03364-RMG

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3

Appeal: 15-6650

Doc: 28

materials

before

Filed: 09/14/2015

this

court

Pg: 4 of 4

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4