Case Name: Mark A. PANOWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon L. HANCOCK, in individual capacity; Sharon L. Hancock, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Charles County (in official capacity), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-24
Citations: 544 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 13-1790
Parties: Mark A. PANOWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon L. HANCOCK, in individual capacity; Sharon L. Hancock, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Charles County (in official capacity), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 202–202

Head Matter:
Mark A. PANOWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon L. HANCOCK, in individual capacity; Sharon L. Hancock, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Charles County (in official capacity), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1790.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 22, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2013.
Mark A. Panowicz, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Scott Curtis, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Panowicz seeks to appeal the district court's order denying the parties' cross-motions for reconsideration of the court's order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Panowicz's civil action and denying Pa-nowicz's motion for leave to amend his complaint. 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 Panowicz seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.