Case Name: Bernard Gregory LAMP, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Donald Wayne Day, Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, State Agency; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Carol Wallace, Warden; Gary Graham, Operations Officer; John Does; Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 78 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 03-6971
Parties: Bernard Gregory LAMP, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Donald Wayne Day, Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, State Agency; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Carol Wallace, Warden; Gary Graham, Operations Officer; John Does; Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
Bernard Gregory LAMP, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Donald Wayne Day, Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, State Agency; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Carol Wallace, Warden; Gary Graham, Operations Officer; John Does; Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6971.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2003.
Decided Oct. 21, 2003.
Bernard Gregory Lamp, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Walter Kilgore, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bernard Gregory Lamp seeks to appeal the order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 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., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the district court dismissed fewer than all claims of all parties in the order Lamp seeks to appeal, the order 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.