Case ID: f-appx_600/html/0140-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlette Dufray JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-6190.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 16, 2015.
    Decided: April 21, 2015.
    
      Charlette Dufray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Susan Beth Menzer, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charlette Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her pro se motion for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (2012). 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because Johnson may cure the deficiency identified by the district court merely by refiling her habeas action on proper forms, the order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 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. 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.