Case Name: Shateek Amin BILAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George CURRIE, Superintendent; Lawrence Solomon, Assistant Superintendent; Ricky Duke, Assistant Superintendent; Jeannie Lancaster; Harold Person; Michael Munns; Lieutenant Ryan; Sergeant Smith; Lieutenant Vanburen; Sergeant Oakes; Guard Norwood; Guard Irby; Guard Williams; Guard Magnum; Guard Jones; Guard McMillion; Guard Cordell; David Carroll, Sergeant; Sergeant Wesley; Sergeant Smith, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-10
Citations: 45 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 02-6848
Parties: Shateek Amin BILAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George CURRIE, Superintendent; Lawrence Solomon, Assistant Superintendent; Ricky Duke, Assistant Superintendent; Jeannie Lancaster; Harold Person; Michael Munns; Lieutenant Ryan; Sergeant Smith; Lieutenant Vanburen; Sergeant Oakes; Guard Norwood; Guard Irby; Guard Williams; Guard Magnum; Guard Jones; Guard McMillion; Guard Cordell; David Carroll, Sergeant; Sergeant Wesley; Sergeant Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 45
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Shateek Amin BILAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George CURRIE, Superintendent; Lawrence Solomon, Assistant Superintendent; Ricky Duke, Assistant Superintendent; Jeannie Lancaster; Harold Person; Michael Munns; Lieutenant Ryan; Sergeant Smith; Lieutenant Vanburen; Sergeant Oakes; Guard Norwood; Guard Irby; Guard Williams; Guard Magnum; Guard Jones; Guard McMillion; Guard Cordell; David Carroll, Sergeant; Sergeant Wesley; Sergeant Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6848.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 5, 2002.
Decided Sept. 10, 2002.
Shateek Amin Bilal, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Shateek Amin Bilal appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order that dismissed some, but not all, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claims as frivolous.
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 appeal-able 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.