Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. Ms. Blowe

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6815
SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. BLOWE; OFFICER K. BROWN; NURSE MS. SULLIVAN; NURSE MS.
DUN; LIEUTENANT LANCASTEIN; SERGEANT DAVID MERRITTS;
SERGEANT GARY MANIGAULT; OFFICER MICHAEL LAWRENCE; CORPORAL
M. SMALLS; OFFICER JAMES JOHNSON; LIEUTENANT CLASSE
THOMPSON; OFFICER RICHARD ALLEN; OFFICER MONIQUE STEWART;
CAPTAIN NUMMALLEY; DOCTOR BABB; NURSE AUSTIN; ASST. WARDEN
MR. BODISON; MR. REEVES, Food Supervisor; MS. WALKER,
Mailroom Lady; SERGEANT MS. PERRY; MS. JENKINS, Grievance
Coordinator; LIEUTENANT KING; OFFICER CHARLES RODGERS;
SERGEANT VONMITIUS; OFFICER PALMER; LIEUTENANT WILLIAMS;
OFFICER COX; CORPORAL SMITH; SERGEANT MEYERS; OFFICER
WILLIAMS; SERGEANT ELMO; SERGEANT JONES; OFFICER ARANDA;
OFFICER GOODWIN; CORPORAL SELBY; OFFICER SIMMONS; OFFICER
MCDONALD; SERGEANT STRADFORD; SERGEANT JEFFERSON; SERGEANT
TERRANCE FORDE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (3:08-cv-01639-SB)
Submitted: October 23, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009
Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se. William J. Thrower,
STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure to
prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Cabbagestalk v.
Blowe, No. 3:08-cv-01639-SB (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2009). We deny
Cabbagestalk’s motion for summary judgment. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --