Case Name: Harold SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVE Associate Warden; Frank Spoon, Factory Manager; Jerry Dempsey, Foreman; FNU Monroe, Foreman; Ricky Gault, Foreman; Elmore Butch Harris, Assistant Safety Manager; John Doe, Property Owner, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-04
Citations: 140 F. App'x 504
Docket Number: No. 05-6473
Parties: Harold SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. STEVE Associate Warden; Frank Spoon, Factory Manager; Jerry Dempsey, Foreman; FNU Monroe, Foreman; Ricky Gault, Foreman; Elmore Butch Harris, Assistant Safety Manager; John Doe, Property Owner, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 504–504

Head Matter:
Harold SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. STEVE Associate Warden; Frank Spoon, Factory Manager; Jerry Dempsey, Foreman; FNU Monroe, Foreman; Ricky Gault, Foreman; Elmore Butch Harris, Assistant Safety Manager; John Doe, Property Owner, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-6473.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 27, 2005.
Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
Harold Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murder Bowens, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Harold Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on the claims as to some, but not all, defendants in Smith's Bivens action. 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 Smith 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
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).