Case Name: Bart Fitzgerald MCCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Avery-Mitchell Facility; Officer Fox; Officer Edwards; Cody Blake Stewart, Correctional Officer; Bruce C. Carpenter, Correctional Officer; Jay Carter, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-28
Citations: 60 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: No. 03-6060
Parties: Bart Fitzgerald MCCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Avery-Mitchell Facility; Officer Fox; Officer Edwards; Cody Blake Stewart, Correctional Officer; Bruce C. Carpenter, Correctional Officer; Jay Carter, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
Bart Fitzgerald MCCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Avery-Mitchell Facility; Officer Fox; Officer Edwards; Cody Blake Stewart, Correctional Officer; Bruce C. Carpenter, Correctional Officer; Jay Carter, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6060.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2003.
Decided March 28, 2003.
Bart Fitzgerald McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Deborrah Lynn Newton, Assistant Attorney General, James Philip Allen, Roy Cooper, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bart Fitzgerald McClain seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to compel. 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). The order McClain 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 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.