Darryl Taylor v. James Smith, No. 08-7125 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 26, 2009.

Download PDF
Rehearing granted, June 8, 2009 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7125 DARRYL TAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JAMES SMITH, Warden; DOUGLAS GANSLER, The Attorney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) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. ยง 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) appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). is mandatory and jurisdictional. Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) or reopens the 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 attorney on May 6, 2008. Because Taylor failed to file a timely 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.