Cabbagestalk v. Tyler ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6339
SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. TYLER; JOHNY SAPP; TROY JONES; DOUGLAS PERNELL; JAMES
CAMPBELL; ROBERT BUCY; JOHN WILLIE BROWN; WAYNE GREEN; DILLON
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; DILLON COUNTY; DILLON HERALD NEWS;
JUDGE JAMES F. ROGERS; JUDGE JOHN DAVIS; WEST JACKSON, ATF
Agent; LT. PAMELA JOHNSON; DILLON COUNTY JAIL DETENTION CENTER;
JUDGE NFN HAYES; JUDGE PAUL M. BURCH; DAVID WATSON, Attorney;
GLEN MANNING, Attorney; KERNARD E. REDMOND, Solicitor; JOHN D.
SAPP, Director DCDC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (3:07-cv-02313-SB)
Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: May 13, 2008
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his civil action without prejudice and denying
his subsequent motion for reconsideration. 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). This appeal period is “mandatory
and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.
257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
229 (1960)).
The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on
September 14, 2007, and November 30, 2007. The notice of appeal
was filed on January 28, 2008.* 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. We deny all
pending motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
*
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 -
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -