Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06190/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06190-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charlette Dufray Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6190

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLETTE DUFRAY JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt,

Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00093-BR-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6190 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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 (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 appealable 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

Appeal: 15-6190 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2