Donta Clanton v. Dep't of Corrections Director, No. 12-8128 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8128 DONTA NOVELL CLANTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01061-GBL-TRJ) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donta Novell Clanton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition 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 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by requirements district the of filing the court s of a petition district court, that we conclude order is neither a final interlocutory appealable satisfies or collateral order. the that order the nor Domino an 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. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.