Akeem Abdullah-Malik v. Bruce Bryant

UNPUBLISHED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.
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.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Akeem Alin-Nafis Abdullah-
Malik 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.
3
against Defendant Sandra Sternal, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the court in its March 24, 2015 order. Abdullah-
Malik 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
4