UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6861

MARK M. LOWE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MAJOR DAVID HAMLETT, Chief of Security; HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Defendants

- Appellees

.

No. 21
- 7527

MARK MADISON LOWE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DAVID HAMLETT, Chief of Security; HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Defendants

- Appellees.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , Senior District Judge. ( 3:20

- cv - 00390

- HEH

- EWH )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7527 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 42 Before WILKINSON , DIAZ , and THACKER , C ircuit Judges.

No. 21

- 6861, dismiss ed; No. 21

- 7527 , a ffirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Mark Madison Lowe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7527 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 43 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Mark Madison Lowe challenges the district court’s orders denying Lowe’s motion to recuse the district court judge (No. 21

- 6861) and dismissing Lowe’s amended complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B),
1915A (No. 21

- 7527)

. This court may ex ercise 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 district court ’ s order denying recusal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore dismiss the appeal in No. 2 1

- 6 861 for lack of jurisdiction. *
In No. 21

- 7527, Lowe appeal s the district court’s order denying Lowe’s motion to disqualify the district court judge and dismissing Lowe’s amended complaint

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. Lowe v. Hamlett , 3 :20

- cv - 00390

- HEH

- EWH (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2021). Accordingly, in No. 2 1

- 6 861, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and in
No. 21

- 7527, we affirm the district court’s order. We grant Lowe’s motions to correct or amend the informal brief filed in Nos. 21

- 6861 and 21

- 7527 , deny Lowe’s motions to vacate the district court’s order and for a stay pending appeal as moot filed in No. 21

- 6861 ,

* The fact that final judgment issued while this appeal was pending does not give us jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court’s recusal order was not an order that could have been followed by the immediate issuance of partial fi nal judgment. In re Bryson , 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[Appellate] Rule 4(a)(2) does not allow a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision . . . to serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment.” (internal quotation m arks omitted)). USCA4 Appeal: 21-7527 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 3 of 44 and deny Lowe’s motion for an order to show cause filed in No. 21

- 7527

. 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.
No. 2 1

- 6 861, DISMISSED ;

No. 21

- 7527, AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7527 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 4 of 4