Willie Asbury v. David Tartarsky, No. 15-6650 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6650 WILLIE JAMES ASBURY, a/k/a Sa’id Abdullah Al’Rashid, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Todd Russell Flippin, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Willie James Asbury appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
