Case Name: Ronnie ORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PORTER, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-21
Citations: 210 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 06-7462
Parties: Ronnie ORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PORTER, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 281–281

Head Matter:
Ronnie ORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PORTER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-7462.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 21, 2006.
Ronnie Ore, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Ore seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to respond to the court's interrogatories designed to particularize his claim. 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 that Ore seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1993). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.