Darryl Taylor v. James Smith
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DARRYL TAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JAMES SMITH, Warden; DOUGLAS GANSLER, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cv-01179-RDB)
November 13, 2008
November 20, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Lawlor, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Darryl Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty 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). is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)
This appeal period
Browder v. Dir., Dep't of (quoting United States v.
Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court's order was entered on the docket on April 1, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed by Taylor's Because Taylor failed to file a timely
attorney on May 6, 2008.
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 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. DISMISSED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?