Case Name: Gilbert L. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Defendants - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 329 F. App'x 460
Docket Number: Nos. 09-1338 to 09-1341, 09-1343 to 09-1349, 09-1351 to 09-1353, 09-1355 to 09-1362, 09-1370, 09-1371, 09-1380
Parties: Gilbert L. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Defendants — Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
Gilbert L. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana R. HURST, Colonel; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Defendants — Appellees.
Nos. 09-1338 to 09-1341, 09-1343 to 09-1349, 09-1351 to 09-1353, 09-1355 to 09-1362, 09-1370, 09-1371, 09-1380.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 7, 2009.
Decided: July 27, 2009.
Gilbert L. Spurlock, Appellant Pro Se. Carol Ann Casto, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gilbert L. Spurlock seeks to appeal the district court's orders transferring his cases to the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders Spurlock seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss the appeals, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Spur-lock's motion to schedule a conference, and dismiss the appeals 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.