Case Name: Donta Novell CLANTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-04
Citations: 522 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 12-8128
Parties: Donta Novell CLANTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 522
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
Donta Novell CLANTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-8128.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 30, 2013.
Decided: June 4, 2013.
Donta Novell Clanton, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donta Clanton seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's order directing him to show cause why his peti tion should not be dismissed as barred by the one-year statute of limitations or barred due to his procedural default, and to pay the statutory filing fee. 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, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of a petition that satisfies the requirements of the district court, we conclude that the district court's order is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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.