Case Name: Bartola J. PACETTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; Mary Holt, Defendants-Appellees, and Mark S. Millard, Judge; Alan Carlson; Attorney General of the United States; United States Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia; State of California Office of Attorney General; Kathy Ricci, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-09
Citations: 474 F. App'x 998
Docket Number: No. 12-1461
Parties: Bartola J. PACETTI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; Mary Holt, Defendants—Appellees, and Mark S. Millard, Judge; Alan Carlson; Attorney General of the United States; United States Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia; State of California Office of Attorney General; Kathy Ricci, Defendants.
Judges: Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 998–999

Head Matter:
Bartola J. PACETTI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; Mary Holt, Defendants—Appellees, and Mark S. Millard, Judge; Alan Carlson; Attorney General of the United States; United States Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia; State of California Office of Attorney General; Kathy Ricci, Defendants.
No. 12-1461.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 9, 2012.
Bartola J. Pacetti, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Ann Edelstein, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bartola J. Pacetti seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss the claims against Defendants Michael J. Astrue and Mary Holt. 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 Pacetti seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Moreover, a review of the district court's docket does not indicate that the court had issued its final judgment before we considered this appeal. Cf. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 289 (4th Cir.2005); Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.1992). Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal, deny Pacetti leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his pending motions, and 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.