Opinion
No. 19-6418
07-19-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM RUDOLPH JOHNSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
William Rudolph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Josev Brewer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:18-cr-00173-HMH-1; 7:19-cv-00017-HMH) Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Rudolph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Josev Brewer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
William Rudolph Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 (1949). "Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties." Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in Johnson's § 2255 motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court failed to address Johnson's claim that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to properly review discovery materials, investigate the allegations, and interview certain witnesses. Accordingly, we conclude that the order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and we therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. Id. at 699. 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 AND REMANDED