Case Name: David Graham GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth W. STOLLE, Sheriff/High Constable; John Doe, Sergeant/Sheriffs Deputy; John Doe, Corporal/Sheriffs Deputy; John Doe, Deputy Sheriff; Jane Doe, Deputy Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-20
Citations: 571 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 14-6278
Parties: David Graham GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth W. STOLLE, Sheriff/High Constable; John Doe, Sergeant/Sheriffs Deputy; John Doe, Corporal/Sheriffs Deputy; John Doe, Deputy Sheriff; Jane Doe, Deputy Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 571
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
David Graham GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth W. STOLLE, Sheriff/High Constable; John Doe, Sergeant/Sheriffs Deputy; John Doe, Corporal/Sheriffs Deputy; John Doe, Deputy Sheriff; Jane Doe, Deputy Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6278.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 1, 2014.
Decided: May 20, 2014.
David Graham Goodman, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Graham Goodman seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. The district court has subsequently ordered that its dismissal order will be vacated, and the case will go forward. 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order that Goodman seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable 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.