Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carson Darrell RODGERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-08
Citations: 122 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 04-7412
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carson Darrell RODGERS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 682–682

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carson Darrell RODGERS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7412.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 16, 2005.
Decided: March 8, 2005.
Carson Darrell Rodgers, Appellant pro se.
Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carson Darrell Rodgers appeals from a district court order adopting the magistrate judge's order to deny Rodgers leave to exceed that court's twenty-page limit on his brief in support of his § 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the 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 (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 here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We 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