UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6418
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM RUDOLPH JOHNSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
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)
Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 19, 2019
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Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
2