Case Name: Edward H. BENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald L. EVANS, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Commerce; Patricia A. Kurkul, in her official capacity as Regional Administrator for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-03
Citations: 81 F. App'x 799
Docket Number: No. 03-1885
Parties: Edward H. BENDER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Donald L. EVANS, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Commerce; Patricia A. Kurkul, in her official capacity as Regional Administrator for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 799–800

Head Matter:
Edward H. BENDER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Donald L. EVANS, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Commerce; Patricia A. Kurkul, in her official capacity as Regional Administrator for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-1885.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
Decided Dec. 3, 2003.
Edward H. Bender, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward H. Bender seeks to appeal the denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order. 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.CivP. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Bender seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 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