Case Name: Lee O. WILSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections; Doris Ewing, Court and Legal Supervisor; Edward Meeks, Superintendent Cold Springs Work Center, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-30
Citations: 386 F. App'x 440
Docket Number: No. 10-6329
Parties: Lee O. WILSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections; Doris Ewing, Court and Legal Supervisor; Edward Meeks, Superintendent Cold Springs Work Center, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
Lee O. WILSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections; Doris Ewing, Court and Legal Supervisor; Edward Meeks, Superintendent Cold Springs Work Center, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6329.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2010.
Decided: June 30, 2010.
Lee O. Wilson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lee O. Wilson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order directing the parties to respond to whether Wilson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claim is moot. 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Wilson 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.