Onaje Seabrook v. LT. Carter

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6699 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6699

ONAJE KUDURA SEABROOK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LT. CARTER; SGT. MILES PERKINS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JANE DOE #3, Health Care Authority; JANE DOE #2, Nurse; JANE DOE #1, Nurse; JANE DOE #4, Nurse,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00007-RMG)

Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 23, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6699 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Onaje Kudura Seabrook, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Clifford Rollins, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6699 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Onaje Kudura Seabrook seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment in favor of the

defendants in Seabrook’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 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). “The timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (citation

modified).

The district court entered its amended judgment on July 8, 2025, and the appeal

period expired on August 7, 2025. Seabrook filed the notice of appeal on August 14, 2025. *

He failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period. Accordingly, we deny Seabrook’s pending motion to appoint counsel, and

we 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

* Seabrook certified that he delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court on August 14. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).