Case Name: Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General; Rod J. Rosenstein, Maryland U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-19
Citations: 619 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 15-1606
Parties: Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General; Rod J. Rosenstein, Maryland U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General; Rod J. Rosenstein, Maryland U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1606.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 15, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 19, 2015.
Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Catherine Denise Randolph seeks to appeal the district court's order granting her leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denying her motion to amend her complaint, and ordering her to show cause why she should not be enjoined from instituting new filings. 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 Carp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Randolph seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 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.