Willie James Asbury, a/k/a Sa’id Abdullah al’Rashid v. John Kinard; James Barber, Iii; Joseph McCrorey; David Norton

UNPUBLISHED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; JAMES BARBER, III; JOSEPH MCCROREY; DAVID
NORTON,
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

-- 1 of 4 --

2
JOHN KINARD; JAMES BARBER, III; JOSEPH MCCROREY; DAVID
NORTON,
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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Willie J. Asbury
challenges the district court’s order 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 harm in the absence of preliminary relief.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
(2008). Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that Asbury failed to make the
requisite showing. 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 of 4 --

4
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The non-dispositive orders Asbury
seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. 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 of 4 --