Case Name: Debro Siddiq ABDUL-AKBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary SAVAGE; Anthony Coates; Cornelious Harrison; Robert Teller; Kimberly Horsley; Sharon La Rhue; Mike Davis; John R. Kaye; Housing Authority of Baltimore; AFSCME Local 647, and all other Persons who are found to have a hidden hand in the acts described within, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-12
Citations: 299 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 08-1628
Parties: Debro Siddiq ABDUL-AKBAR, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gary SAVAGE; Anthony Coates; Cornelious Harrison; Robert Teller; Kimberly Horsley; Sharon La Rhue; Mike Davis; John R. Kaye; Housing Authority of Baltimore; AFSCME Local 647, and all other Persons who are found to have a hidden hand in the acts described within, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
Debro Siddiq ABDUL-AKBAR, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gary SAVAGE; Anthony Coates; Cornelious Harrison; Robert Teller; Kimberly Horsley; Sharon La Rhue; Mike Davis; John R. Kaye; Housing Authority of Baltimore; AFSCME Local 647, and all other Persons who are found to have a hidden hand in the acts described within, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-1628.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2008.
Decided: Nov. 12, 2008.
Debro Siddiq Abdul-Akbar, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Debro Siddiq Abdul-Akbar seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. 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 Abdul-Akbar seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdie tion. 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.