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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?