UNPUBLISHED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
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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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., 
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