Case Name: Floyd Raymond LOOKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David E. GODWIN, Esq.; J.C. Raffety, SRSA; Other Unknown Federal Officials, Defendants-Appellees, and Okei Marshall Richards, Jr.; William Cipriani, Esq., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-13
Citations: 3 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 00-6924
Parties: Floyd Raymond LOOKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David E. GODWIN, Esq.; J.C. Raffety, SRSA; Other Unknown Federal Officials, Defendants-Appellees, and Okei Marshall Richards, Jr.; William Cipriani, Esq., Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
Floyd Raymond LOOKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David E. GODWIN, Esq.; J.C. Raffety, SRSA; Other Unknown Federal Officials, Defendants-Appellees, and Okei Marshall Richards, Jr.; William Cipriani, Esq., Defendants.
No. 00-6924.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 8, 2001.
Decided Feb. 13, 2001.
Floyd Raymond Looker, Jr., pro se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, WV, for appellees.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Floyd Raymond Looker, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing Defendants Godwin, Raffety, and "other unknown federal officials" and denying Looker's motion for change of venue. 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 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 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.