Willie Asbury v. John Kinard, No. 14-6639 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6639 WILLIE JAMES ASBURY, a/k/a Sa id Abdullah al Rashid, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN KINARD;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 JOHN KINARD; NORTON, JAMES BARBER, 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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In challenges these the consolidated district appeals, court s Willie order J. Asbury adopting the recommendation of the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., 3 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). seeks to appeal interlocutory are or 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
