Case Name: Kenneth D. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Christopher R. TUCK, Plaintiff, v. Officer Russell; Officer Witherspoon, Defendants-Appellees, and Concord Police Department, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-21
Citations: 30 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 01-2289
Parties: Kenneth D. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Christopher R. TUCK, Plaintiff, v. Officer Russell; Officer Witherspoon, Defendants-Appellees, and Concord Police Department, Defendant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Kenneth D. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Christopher R. TUCK, Plaintiff, v. Officer Russell; Officer Witherspoon, Defendants-Appellees, and Concord Police Department, Defendant.
No. 01-2289.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 14, 2002.
Decided March 21, 2002.
Kenneth D. Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Terry D. Horne, Stiles, Byrum & Horne, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth D. Rogers appeals the order of the district court adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Rogers' claims. We dismiss Rogers' appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it disposed of only some of the claims and parties in this civil action. Tuck's claims of excessive force against two police officers remain.
We therefore dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.