UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6002

AKEEM ALIN-NAFIS ABDULLAH-MALIK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRUCE M. BRYANT, et al Sheriff; JAMES F. ARWOOD, et al Jail 

Administrator; RICHARD L. MARTIN, JR., et al Assistant Jail 

Administrator; GARY L. DAVIS, et al Security Commander; ALL 

LISTED AND UNKNOWN AGENTS; BEN HOWLEY, et al Training 

Lieutenant; CHERYL CUZMAN, et al Administrative Lieutenant; 

FRAN C. PLEMMONS, Lieutenant; RANDY GUIDERY, 

Classification/ICE 287g; JOHN C. HICKS, Internal Affairs; 

TAMMY M. DOVER, RN Medical Services Coordinator; SANDRA

STERNAL, Dietitian Trinity Food Services Group Oldsmar, 

Florida Contracted thru York County Detention Facility; JT 

STRAIT, Detention Officer Sergeant; MCMILLIAN, Detention 

Officer Sergeant; HENSON, Detention Officer Sergeant; 

TUCKER, Detention Officer Sergeant; PENLAND, Detention 

Officer; ROBINSON, Detention Officer; NORRIS, Detention 

Officer; YOCHEM, Detention Officer; MCMAHAN, Detention 

Officer; REYNOLDS, Detention Officer; WENDY PLEMMONS; M A 

GURDRY; YORK COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE; YORK COUNTY DETENTION 

CENTER; SGT MCMILLIAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-6540

AKEEM ALIN-NAFIS ABDULLAH-MALIK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.
2

BRUCE M. BRYANT, et al Sheriff; JAMES F. ARWOOD, et al Jail 

Administrator; RICHARD L. MARTIN, JR., et al Assistant Jail 

Administrator; GARY L. DAVIS, et al Security Commander; ALL 

LISTED AND UNKNOWN AGENTS; BEN HOWLEY, et al Training 

Lieutenant; CHERYL CUZMAN, et al Administrative Lieutenant; 

FRAN C. PLEMMONS, Lieutenant; RANDY GUIDERY, 

Classification/ICE 287g; JOHN C. HICKS, Internal Affairs; 

TAMMY M. DOVER, RN Medical Services Coordinator; SANDRA

STERNAL, Dietitian Trinity Food Services Group Oldsmar, 

Florida Contracted thru York County Detention Facility; JT 

STRAIT, Detention Officer Sergeant; MCMILLIAN, Detention 

Officer Sergeant; HENSON, Detention Officer Sergeant; 

TUCKER, Detention Officer Sergeant; PENLAND, Detention 

Officer; ROBINSON, Detention Officer; NORRIS, Detention 

Officer; YOCHEM, Detention Officer; MCMAHAN, Detention 

Officer; REYNOLDS, Detention Officer; WENDY PLEMMONS; M A 

GURDRY; YORK COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE; YORK COUNTY DETENTION 

CENTER; SGT MCMILLIAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(1:14-cv-00109-RBH-SVH; 1:14-cv-00109-RBH)

Submitted: June 30, 2015 Decided: July 29, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

No. 15-6002 affirmed; No. 15-6540 affirmed in part and dismissed

in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Akeem Alin-Nafis Abdullah-Malik, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David 

Garfield, Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, 

South Carolina; Gregory D. Cote, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, 

Boston, Massachusetts; Theodore David Rheney, GALLIVAN, WHITE & 

BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Akeem Alin-Nafis AbdullahMalik appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

reconsideration and the court’s order adopting as modified the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing 

Abdullah-Malik’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights complaint. 

We have reviewed the district court’s order denying 

reconsideration and find no abuse of discretion. See Heyman v. 

M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997) (stating 

standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm No. 15-6002 on the 

reasoning of the district court.1 Abdullah-Malik v. Bryant, No. 

1:14-cv-00109-RBH-SVH (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 2014). 

In No. 15-6540, because Abdullah-Malik failed to file 

timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, we dismiss in part. Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 

109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). Insofar as the district 

court concluded that Abdullah-Malik failed to state a claim 

 1 The district court’s order denying Abdullah-Malik’s motion 

for reconsideration was an interlocutory order from which no 

appeal lies. However, Abdullah-Malik’s appeal from that order 

is merged into the final judgment and is open to review on his 

appeal from that judgment. Hellerstein v. Mr. Steak, Inc., 531 

F.2d 470, 474 (10th Cir. 1976) (“The general rule is that an 

interlocutory order from which no appeal lies is merged into the 

final judgment and open to review on appeal from that 

judgment.”). Accordingly, we deny as moot the Appellees’ motion 

to dismiss. 
4

against Defendant Sandra Sternal, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the court in its March 24, 2015 order. AbdullahMalik v. Bryant, No. 1:14-cv-00109-RBH-SVH (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 

2015). We have considered Abdullah-Malik’s remaining arguments 

and conclude they are without merit. 

Accordingly, in No. 15-6002, we affirm and deny the 

Appellees’ motion to dismiss as moot, and in No. 15-6540, we 

affirm in part and dismiss in part. 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.

No. 15-6002 AFFIRMED

No. 15-6540 AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART