Case Name: Larry WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer ROBERTSON; Warden McCall; Major Bush; Caroline Lindsey, Staff Attorney; Lt. Williams; Lt. Earl; Capt. Absten; Capt. Tich; Debra Barnwell; Mr. Jon Ozmint, Director; Stephen R. Clayton, Warden, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-01
Citations: 472 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 12-6067
Parties: Larry WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer ROBERTSON; Warden McCall; Major Bush; Caroline Lindsey, Staff Attorney; Lt. Williams; Lt. Earl; Capt. Absten; Capt. Tich; Debra Barnwell; Mr. Jon Ozmint, Director; Stephen R. Clayton, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
Larry WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer ROBERTSON; Warden McCall; Major Bush; Caroline Lindsey, Staff Attorney; Lt. Williams; Lt. Earl; Capt. Absten; Capt. Tich; Debra Barnwell; Mr. Jon Ozmint, Director; Stephen R. Clayton, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-6067.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2012.
Decided: May 1, 2012.
Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry Williams seeks to appeal the district court's text order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action, which denied Williams' motion for default judgment against Defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interloe utory 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, 545-6, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Williams seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.