Case Name: Otis O. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRS STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-16
Citations: 217 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 06-2023
Parties: Otis O. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRS STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
Otis O. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRS STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED; Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-2023.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 16, 2007.
Otis O. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Litvin Goodboe, McGuirewoods, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Otis 0. Edwards seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order imposing sanctions. 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., 387 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Edwards 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 deny Edwards' motion for 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.