Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07735/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07735-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
James Simpson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7735

JAMES HENRY SIMPSON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Department of Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 19-7841

JAMES HENRY SIMPSON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Department of Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge; Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate

Judge. (3:19-cv-00724-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 21, 2020

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7735 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7735 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

James Simpson seeks to challenge the district court’s order directing him to refile 

the document the court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition on a court-approved 

form. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order 

Simpson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 

order.

1

 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in No. 19-7735 for lack of jurisdiction and 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Simpson also appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his

§ 2254 petition for failure to prosecute.

2

 On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the Simpson’s informal brief filed in No. 19-7841. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because 

that informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Simpson

has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 

177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit 

 1 Although the district court subsequently dismissed the action before we considered 

these appeals, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional defect. 

See Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 479 (4th Cir. 2015) (“The doctrine 

applies . . . only when the appellant appeals from an order that the district court could have 

certified for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b).”).

2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal in No. 19-7841 because the district court 

dismissed the § 2254 petition “for procedural reasons unrelated to the contents of the 

pleadings.” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015).

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7735 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/21/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm this 

portion of the appeal.

3

 

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 IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART

 3 Although the appeal in No. 19-7841 arises from the disposition of a § 2254 

petition, we conclude that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary. See Harbison v. 

Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 194 (2009).

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7735 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/21/2020 Pg: 4 of 4