**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6**  **639**

WILLIE JAMES ASBURY, a/k/a Sa ’ id Abdullah al ’ Rashid ,
P laintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.
JOHN KINARD; JAMES BARBER, III; JOSEPH MCCROREY; DAVID NORTON , Defendant s - Appell ees , 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

- Appell ees , and2 JOHN KINARD; JAMES BARBER, III; JOSEPH MCCROREY; DAVID NORTON,
Defendants

.

Appeal s 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 ; d ismiss ed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Willie J ames Asbury , Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina , for Appellee s .
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Willie J. Asbury challenges the district court’s order adopting the
recommend ation 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 fail ed 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 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. ,4 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The non - dispositive order s Asbury seeks to appeal are neither final order s nor appealable interlocutory or collateral order s . Accordingly, we grant

A ppellees’ motion and dismiss th is portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART