Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-18
Citations: 669 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 16-6780
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 656–656

Head Matter:
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.
No. 16-6780
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 13, 2016
Decided: October 18, 2016
James E. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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