Case Name: Banoro GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; The Norfolk Sheriffs Office; The City of Norfolk; Lieutenant R.H. Weiler; Sergeant R.D. Lewis; Officer D.A. Pacifico; Officer H.G. White; Robert J. McCabe; Lieutenant Bonilla; Sergeant G. Snyder; Deputy Taylor; M/Deputy A. Mears; L. Willis; P. Bell; J. Cummins, L.P.N.; J. Kidd; Darrell Hill, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-02
Citations: 516 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 13-1092
Parties: Banoro GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; The Norfolk Sheriffs Office; The City of Norfolk; Lieutenant R.H. Weiler; Sergeant R.D. Lewis; Officer D.A. Pacifico; Officer H.G. White; Robert J. McCabe; Lieutenant Bonilla; Sergeant G. Snyder; Deputy Taylor; M/Deputy A. Mears; L. Willis; P. Bell; J. Cummins, L.P.N.; J. Kidd; Darrell Hill, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
Banoro GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; The Norfolk Sheriffs Office; The City of Norfolk; Lieutenant R.H. Weiler; Sergeant R.D. Lewis; Officer D.A. Pacifico; Officer H.G. White; Robert J. McCabe; Lieutenant Bonilla; Sergeant G. Snyder; Deputy Taylor; M/Deputy A. Mears; L. Willis; P. Bell; J. Cummins, L.P.N.; J. Kidd; Darrell Hill, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1092.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2013.
Decided: April 2, 2013.
Banoro Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond, Virginia; Melvin Wayne Ringer, City Attorney’s Office, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Banoro Garrett seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing some Defendants from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Garrett seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 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 ma terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.