USCA4 Appeal: 25-6379 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6379

SHAUNESI YVETTE DEBERRY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, As Custodian; CAROLYN J. SCRUGGS, in her official capacity as Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services; YOLANDA R. BETHEA, D. Min, in her official capacity as Acting Director, Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services; SHERIFF EVERETT L. SESKER, in his official capacity, Anne Arundel County Sheriff; ANTHONY G. BROWN, in his official capacity as the Maryland Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:25-cv-01080-TDC)

Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 23, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaunesi Yvette DeBerry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6379 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Shaunesi Yvette DeBerry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying without prejudice her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and granting her leave to file an amended petition.

On appeal, DeBerry has moved for an injunction to prevent the state from enforcing a bench warrant against her. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order DeBerry seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (holding dismissal without prejudice with leave to amend is not a final order). Accordingly, we deny DeBerry’s motion for injunctive relief, deny a certificate of appealability, 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