Phillip Wendell Taylor, Petitioner-appellant, v. Thomas R. Israel, Warden, Attorney General of the State Ofvirginia, Respondents-appellees, 885 F.2d 866 (4th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 885 F.2d 866 (4th Cir. 1989) Submitted Aug. 3, 1989. Decided Sept. 11, 1989

Phillip Wendell Taylor, appellant pro se.

Before CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


Phillip Wendell Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action for failure to exhaust state remedies. We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The district court dismissed this action on December 19, 1988. On April 7, 1989, Taylor filed an informal brief in another appeal in which he referenced the district court's order dismissing this petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. We need not reach the question whether Taylor's reference to the district court's order in this case may be considered adequate to notify the court and the parties that an appeal was being taken in this action, see Cobb v. Lewis, 488 F.2d 41, 45 (5th Cir. 1974) (document is valid notice of appeal if it notifies court and parties that appeal is being taken), because Taylor's appeal is, in any event, untimely.

Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1), Taylor was required to note his appeal within 30 days of the district court's December 19, 1988, judgment. He failed to do this, and he failed to file a timely motion to extend the appeal period as permitted by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (5). Absent a timely appeal, we are without jurisdiction to review this case.

We accordingly dismiss the appeal as untimely. Taylor is, of course, free to refile his habeas action and establish that he has now exhausted state remedies. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues have been decided authoritatively.

DISMISSED.

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.