Case Name: Brian FARABEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Eric Madsen, Psychologist II; A. David Robinson, Chief of Corrections Operations ("CCO"); M. Carry, M.D., Psychiatrist; The Virginia Department of Corrections, (VA DOC), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-24
Citations: 686 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 16-7723
Parties: Brian FARABEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Eric Madsen, Psychologist II; A. David Robinson, Chief of Corrections Operations (“CCO”); M. Carry, M.D., Psychiatrist; The Virginia Department of Corrections, (VA DOC), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and Shedd and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 686
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Brian FARABEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Eric Madsen, Psychologist II; A. David Robinson, Chief of Corrections Operations (“CCO”); M. Carry, M.D., Psychiatrist; The Virginia Department of Corrections, (VA DOC), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-7723
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 18, 2017
Decided: April 24, 2017
Brian Damon Farabee, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and Shedd and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Farabee seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for injunctive relief by declaratory judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); 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 that Fara-bee 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED