Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07645/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07645-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7645

NORMAN RATTLIFF, JR.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

GERALD MCPEAK, Superintendent, New River Valley Regional 

Jail; N. H. PELKINS, Correctional Officer Supervisor, New 

River Valley Regional Jail; JOHN DOE, JR., Primary Care 

Physician, New River Valley Regional Jail,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (7:08-cv-00551-gec-mfu)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 19, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Rattliff, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7645 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/19/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Norman Rattliff, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s dismissal of his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court’s order 

was entered on March 19, 2009. We construe Rattliff’s notice of 

appeal as having been filed on August 29, 2009, the day he 

delivered it to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 277 (1988). In his 

notice of appeal, Rattliff stated that he did not receive notice 

of the district court’s order.

Parties are accorded thirty days after 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)).

Rattliff’s notice of appeal is clearly untimely. 

However, under Rule 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the 

time to file an appeal if (1) the moving party did not receive 

notice of entry of judgment within twenty-one days after entry, 

(2) the motion is filed within 180 days of entry of judgment or 

Appeal: 09-7645 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/19/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

within seven days of receiving notice from the court, whichever 

is earlier, and (3) no party would be prejudiced. We remand for 

the limited purpose of permitting the district court to 

determine whether Rattliff is entitled to the benefit of Rule 

4(a)(6) to reopen the time to file an appeal. The record, as 

supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further 

consideration.

REMANDED

Appeal: 09-7645 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/19/2010 Pg: 3 of 3