Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8220
SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT;
CHAPLAIN VAN BEBBER, Lieber Head Chaplain; HEADQUARTERS
CHAPLAIN, in Columbia,
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-02718-SB)
Submitted: March 3, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010
Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of
the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends
the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s judgment was entered on the
docket on September 18, 2009. Cabbagestalk’s notice of appeal
was deposited in the prison’s internal mail system on November
12, 2009. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988). Because Cabbagestalk failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Cabbagestalk’s motion to
comply is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --