Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. South Carolina Department of C, No. 09-8220 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8220 SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, Appellees. William J. Thrower, South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shaheen court s order Cabbagestalk accepting the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 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. The Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). district court s docket on September 18, 2009. judgment was entered on the 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. comply is denied. facts and legal Cabbagestalk s motion to We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 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.
