Case Name: Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis; Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David ROBINSON; Curtis Wall; M. Vosburg; Unknown Hicks; M. Rook; Unknown Vargo; D. Wilmouth; Unknown Creque; C. Parker; Harold Clark; M. Forbes, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-08
Citations: 691 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 16-7357
Parties: Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis; Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David ROBINSON; Curtis Wall; M. Vosburg; Unknown Hicks; M. Rook; Unknown Vargo; D. Wilmouth; Unknown Creque; C. Parker; Harold Clark; M. Forbes, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 726–726

Head Matter:
Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis; Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David ROBINSON; Curtis Wall; M. Vosburg; Unknown Hicks; M. Rook; Unknown Vargo; D. Wilmouth; Unknown Creque; C. Parker; Harold Clark; M. Forbes, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-7357
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2017
Decided: June 8, 2017
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Eric L. Prosha, John King, Aaron Lewis, Peter Rosas, Ryan Sessoms, and Ray Watson, Appellants Pro Se,
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court's orders dismissing the claims of Aaron Lewis and Momolu V.S. Sirleaf without prejudice, and ordering that individual actions be opened for Eric L. Pro-sha, John King, Peter Rosas, Ryan Ses-soms, and Ray Watson. 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 Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders that Appellants seek to appeal are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED