Patrick v. Reo v. Jacqueline Porter, Administrative Systems Manager of Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia

935 F.2d 1287, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 19576, 1991 WL 111190
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 26, 1991
Docket91-7510
StatusUnpublished

This text of 935 F.2d 1287 (Patrick v. Reo v. Jacqueline Porter, Administrative Systems Manager of Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Patrick v. Reo v. Jacqueline Porter, Administrative Systems Manager of Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia, 935 F.2d 1287, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 19576, 1991 WL 111190 (4th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

935 F.2d 1287
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Patrick V. REO, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Jacqueline PORTER, Administrative Systems Manager of Federal
Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 91-7510.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 21, 1991.
Decided June 26, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-90-1917-N)

Patrict V. Reo, appellant pro se.

Michael A. Rhine, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick V. Reo noted this appeal from the district court's judgment pending disposition of a timely motion to alter or amend that judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. Under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4), a notice of appeal filed before disposition of a timely Rule 59 motion is without effect, and a new notice of appeal must be filed within the appeal period measured from entry of the order disposing of the motion. Appellant's timely Rule 59 motion invalidated this notice of appeal, and he failed to file a new appeal after disposition of his Rule 59 motion. Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982). Accordingly, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
935 F.2d 1287, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 19576, 1991 WL 111190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-v-reo-v-jacqueline-porter-administrative-systems-manager-of-ca4-1991.