Steven Barnes v. E. Quattlebaum et al, No. 09-8101 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8101 STEVEN LEWIS BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. E. QUATTLEBAUM, Sergeant, individually and official capacity; MAJOR JACKSON, individually and official capacity; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (4:08-cv-02197-MBS) Submitted: May 22, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Lewis Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven court s order Lewis adopting Barnes the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and dismissing Barnes 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice remedies. We for dismiss failure the appeal to exhaust for lack administrative 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). is mandatory and jurisdictional. Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) This appeal period Browder v. Dir., Dep t of (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court s order was entered on the docket on September 29, October 30, 2009.* 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on Because Barnes failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the Appellees motion to dismiss the appeal. * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 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. DISMISSED 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.
