Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06780/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06780-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6780

JAMES E. TAYLOR,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA; SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA and 

its inferior courts; VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT 

ENFORCEMENT (DCSE),

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00509-JAG-MHL)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6780 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James E. Taylor appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to 

comply with the court’s order. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because Taylor may 

refile his petition to conform with the district court’s local 

rules, we conclude that the order Taylor seeks to appeal is 

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 

F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar 

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

and deny Taylor’s motion for pendente lite relief. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6780 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 2