UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1965

TRACY WOODY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ADVANCED INTERNET MARKETING, INCORPORATED;

AMERICA ONLINE, INCORPORATED; THE BROCK

AGENCY, INCORPORATED; CHRIS WHITE; JOSEPH

CHOU; CUTTING EDGE MEDIA; CONSUMER SERVICES;

ALVIN G. DOMINEY; KOUNTRY BOY ADVERTISING;

MOMENTUM HEALTH & NUTRITION; E-TALENT BASE;

GALAXY MALL, INCORPORATED; JOHN WRIGHT

PUBLISHING; HOMESTEAD SCHOOLS, INCORPORATED;

TIME PUBLISHING COMPANY; LEADSOURCE

INTERNATIONAL; WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE; THE NEWS

AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY; PREPAID LEGAL

SERVICES; QUALITY TEK FINANCIAL SERVICES;

QUANTUM PUBLISHING; PERRY WILKES; QUINTON

HALL; AARON MACERELLI; SAM'S, a/k/a Sam's Home

Employment; SFI SOFTWARE; STARCREST OF

CALIFORNIA; ALEX STROKA; NEXT CENTURY

MARKETING, INCORPORATED; INTERNATIONAL

TEAMWORKS, INCORPORATED, a/k/a ITI,

Incorporated; WINDSOR JUDICIAL SYSTEM; JOHN

ROBERT POWERS, INCORPORATED;

NEWSLINC/WINNING!; EBAY, INCORPORATED; CHARLES

VINEYARD; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED;

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA,

INC.; CLIFF SMITH; BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

JOURNAL; MBI/IN TRADING; FINANCIAL AUTOMATED

SERVICE & TRADE, a/k/a F.A.S.T.; CORNERSTONE

MARKETING, INCORPORATED; DECIDE TO WIN;

DIVERSIFIED CELLULAR TECHNOLOGIES; LION'S TWIN

MARKETING; M.O.R.E., INCORPORATED; DATA TECH,

INCORPORATED; SKYCOM; CHIAPPONE MAIL

ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; INTERNATIONAL

MODELING & TALENT ASSOCIATION; CENTER FOR

SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST; ERIE INSURANCE

EXCHANGE; DAVID WRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY;
- 2 -

AMERICAN DREAM NUTRITION, INCORPORATED;

STAPLES, INCORPORATED; ALAN BECHTOLD; SUCCESS

MARKETING GROUP, INCORPORATED; RONALD L.

SARGENT; ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY; ERIE

INSURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-02-675-5-H)

Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracy Woody, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Jay Prak, Charles Earp Coble,

BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Raleigh, North

Carolina; Brian Edward Moore, HOWARD, STALLINGS, FROM & HUTSON,

P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina; Cedric R. Perry, Raleigh, North

Carolina; Herbert P. Henderson, II, REIDENBACH, HENDERSON & PECHT,

Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Johnny Morgan Loper, Melody Carroll RayWellborn, Matthew Sean Healey, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE,

Raleigh, North Carolina; Shawn Douglas Mercer, JOHNSON, HEARN,

VINEGAR & GEE, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina; Vijay Fadia,

Torrance, California; Hugh Stevens, C. Amanda Martin, EVERETT,

GASKINS, HANCOCK & STEVENS, Raleigh, North Carolina; Perry Wilkes,

Columbus, Ohio; George Ollie Winborne, Jr., ALSTON & BIRD, L.L.P.,

Raleigh, North Carolina; Alycia Sara Levy, CRANFILL, SUMNER &

HARTZOG, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; Chiappone Mail

Enterprises, Incorporated, West Babylon, New York; Carl Norris

Patterson, Jr., Matthew Duvall Rhoad, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT,

DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North Carolina; James Donald

Cowan, Jr., SMITH MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina; Wendy

I. Sexton, SMITH MOORE, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Tracy Woody seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing all but two of the defendants named in the underlying

civil action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order Woody seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED