Filed: Jun. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6224 TERON H. JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LEWIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (5:18-cv-03469-MGL) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teron H. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6224 TERON H. JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LEWIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (5:18-cv-03469-MGL) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teron H. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6224
TERON H. JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEWIS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (5:18-cv-03469-MGL)
Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Teron H. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Teron H. Jackson appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to comply with a court order directing
him to pay the required filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application. * We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson
v. Lewis, No. 5:18-cv-03469-MGL (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2019). We deny a certificate of
appealability as unnecessary. See Harbison v. Bell,
556 U.S. 180 (2009). 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.
AFFIRMED
*
We conclude that the district court’s order is final and appealable because the
defect identified by the district court must be cured by something more than an
amendment to the allegations in the § 2254 petition. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid
Soc’y, Inc.,
807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015).
2