Case Name: Larry Lamont BUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John H. PRICE, Warden; William Britton, Case Manager; Mary Chaplin-Cole, Case Manager; M. Stouffer, Warden; K. Hoffman, Case Manager, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-06
Citations: 114 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 04-6685
Parties: Larry Lamont BUSH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John H. PRICE, Warden; William Britton, Case Manager; Mary Chaplin-Cole, Case Manager; M. Stouffer, Warden; K. Hoffman, Case Manager, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 581–581

Head Matter:
Larry Lamont BUSH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John H. PRICE, Warden; William Britton, Case Manager; Mary Chaplin-Cole, Case Manager; M. Stouffer, Warden; K. Hoffman, Case Manager, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-6685.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 20, 2004.
Decided Dec. 6, 2004.
Larry Lamont Bush, Appellant pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Larry Lamont Bush appeals the district court's order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and to compel discovery in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). With regard to the denial of injunctive relief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bush v. Price, No. CA-03-2264-1-AMD (D.Md. Mar. 17, 2004).
To the extent that Bush appeals the denial of the motion to compel discovery, 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Bush seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We grant the motion to submit on informal briefs and 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART