## Facts

- Pittsylvania County’s Board of Supervisors opened its twice-monthly public meetings with invocations delivered by Board members.
- The invocations were usually explicitly Christian, and attendees were asked to stand during the prayers.
- Barbara Hudson, a non-Christian resident who regularly attended meetings, alleged the practice made non-Christian citizens feel unwelcome.
- Hudson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the sectarian prayer practice violated the Establishment Clause.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Hudson, entered a permanent injunction barring the Board from repeatedly opening meetings with prayers associated with any one religion, and struck the case from the active docket while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the injunction and consider attorney’s fees.
- After a fee petition, the district court awarded Hudson $53,229.92 in attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- Pittsylvania filed a notice of appeal 175 days after the merits and injunction orders, challenging both the merits disposition and the fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s orders granting summary judgment, imposing a permanent injunction, and striking the case from the active docket (while retaining jurisdiction for enforcement and fees) were a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2. If the orders were final, whether the notice of appeal filed 175 days later was untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), depriving the court of appellate jurisdiction over the merits.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding $53,229.92 in attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

## Decision

- The court held the merits and permanent-injunction orders were final decisions under § 1291 because they resolved all substantive issues; retained jurisdiction for enforcement and fees did not defeat finality.
- The court dismissed the appeal from the merits and permanent injunction for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed well outside the 30-day deadline.
- The court affirmed the attorney’s fee award, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s assessment of the reasonable amount.

## Legal Principles

- A district court order is final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when it resolves the merits and leaves only enforcement or collateral matters; retaining jurisdiction to enforce an injunction or decide fees does not negate finality.
- The time limit to file a notice of appeal in a civil case under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) is jurisdictional; an untimely notice eliminates appellate jurisdiction over the challenged merits judgment.
- A prevailing plaintiff in a § 1983 action may recover reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; fee awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion with substantial deference to the district court.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit treated the district court’s merits judgment and permanent injunction as final and dismissed Pittsylvania’s late-filed merits appeal for lack of jurisdiction, while affirming the district court’s discretionary award of attorney’s fees to Hudson as the prevailing party.


Hudson v. Pittsylvania Cnty., 774 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 2014)