Bilal A. Al-Haqq, a/k/a Michael Dion McFadden, a/k/a Michael D. Mcfadden, a/k/a… v. Warden Evonne Willingham

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7089
BILAL A. AL-HAQQ, a/k/a Michael Dion McFadden, a/k/a Michael D. Mcfadden,
a/k/a Bilal Abdullah Al-Haqq,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN EVONNE WILLINGHAM; ASSOCIATE WARDEN ELAINE
FREEMAN; BRYAN P. STIRLING; ASSOCIATE WARDEN ANN SHEPPARD,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WARDEN BRIAN
KENDALL; NURSE GRISSOM; PATTY BRITT-POOSER; MS. BROWN,
Grievance Coordinator,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (2:21-cv-04139-DCC)
Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Bilal A. Al-Haqq, Appellant Pro Se. Norma Anne Turner Jett, NESS & JETT, LLC,
Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Bilal A. Al-Haqq seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action.
Appellees move to dismiss the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases, parties have 30 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 entered its order on October 3, 2022. Al-Haqq filed the notice of
appeal on October 13, 2023.* Because Al-Haqq failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Appellees’ motion and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the cover
letter for the notice of appeal is the earliest date Al-Haqq could have delivered the notice
to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

-- 3 of 3 --