Case Name: James VANG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMIT, Director of SCDC; Warden of Perry Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-17
Citations: 365 F. App'x 489
Docket Number: No. 09-7088
Parties: James VANG, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon OZMIT, Director of SCDC; Warden of Perry Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 365
Pages: 489–489

Head Matter:
James VANG, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon OZMIT, Director of SCDC; Warden of Perry Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 09-7088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 14, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 17, 2010.
James Vang, Appellant Pro Se. ■ Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Vang seeks to appeal the district court's order overruling Vang's objections to the magistrate judge's order denying his "Motion in Abeyance and/or Stay of Habeas Corpus." 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Vang seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Vang's motion for stay pending appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Vang's motion for a certificate of appealability is denied as unnecessary. 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.