Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07648/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07648-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7648

STEVE CARL CHADWICK-EL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

VERIZON WIRELESS, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:09-

cv-01490-RWT) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Steve Carl Chadwick-el, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7648 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Steve Carl Chadwick-el seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action 

against Verizon Wireless. 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 order was entered on the docket 

on June 25, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on or about 

August 11, 2009.* Thus, the notice of appeal was filed outside 

the thirty-day appeal period. Because Chadwick-el failed to 

 

*

 Because Chadwick-el is incarcerated, he is deemed to have 

filed the notice of appeal the date he deposited it in the 

prison mail system. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). However, the 

notice of appeal does not contain a declaration or notarized 

statement reflecting that date, as required by Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(c)(1), and the post-mark date is 

illegible. In determining the filing date, we have afforded 

Chadwick-el the presumption that he tendered the notice of 

appeal on August 11, 2009, five business days prior to this 

court’s August 18, 2009 receipt thereof. 

Appeal: 09-7648 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3 

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or 

reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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

Appeal: 09-7648 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 3 of 3