Case Name: Charlette Dufray JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. Earl BRITT; Jason Crowley, U.S. Prosecutor; Gaston Williams, U.S. Prosecutor; Felice Corpening, U.S. Prosecutor; Jane Pierce, Public Defender; Slade Trabucco, Public Defender; Mitch Steyers, Public Defender; Mary Parker, Probation Officer; Reginald Demetrus, Case Agent; Unknown Agent, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-19
Citations: 593 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 14-7793
Parties: Charlette Dufray JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. Earl BRITT; Jason Crowley, U.S. Prosecutor; Gaston Williams, U.S. Prosecutor; Felice Corpening, U.S. Prosecutor; Jane Pierce, Public Defender; Slade Trabucco, Public Defender; Mitch Steyers, Public Defender; Mary Parker, Probation Officer; Reginald Demetrus, Case Agent; Unknown Agent, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
Charlette Dufray JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. Earl BRITT; Jason Crowley, U.S. Prosecutor; Gaston Williams, U.S. Prosecutor; Felice Corpening, U.S. Prosecutor; Jane Pierce, Public Defender; Slade Trabucco, Public Defender; Mitch Steyers, Public Defender; Mary Parker, Probation Officer; Reginald Demetrus, Case Agent; Unknown Agent, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7793.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 12, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 19, 2015.
Charlette Dufray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charlette Dufray Johnson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order granting Johnson leave to proceed in her civil action without prepayment of fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (b) (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). The order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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.