Case Name: Carlos LaJuane MURPHY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-01
Citations: 516 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 12-7976
Parties: Carlos LaJuane MURPHY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 265–266

Head Matter:
Carlos LaJuane MURPHY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 12-7976.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2013.
Decided: April 1, 2013.
Carlos LaJuane Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos LaJuane Murphy seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failing to abide by the orders of the court, failing to prosecute, and abandonment of claims. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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). The order Murphy seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Murphy may be able to save his petition by amending it to comply with the district court's order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.