Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06650/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06650-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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; JAMES BARBER, III; JOSEPH MCCROREY; DAVID 

NORTON,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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: 1 of 4
2

Todd Russell Flippin, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6650 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised 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 have reviewed the record and discern no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 

district court. Asbury v. Tartarsky, No. 8:13-cv-03364-RMG

(D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 15-6650 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-6650 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 4 of 4