Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. Ms. Blowe, No. 09-6815 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6815 SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MS.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se. STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, Appellees. William J. Thrower, South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Shaheen Cabbagestalk appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his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). record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the 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). Cabbagestalk s motion for summary judgment. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We deny We dispense with legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.