Case Name: Lenir RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O.J. FAULK, Officer, Badge #2908; D.N. Custer, Officer, Badge #3756; Officer Rizza; Commonwealth of Attorney; Mario Torres, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-31
Citations: 651 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 16-1125
Parties: Lenir RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O.J. FAULK, Officer, Badge #2908; D.N. Custer, Officer, Badge #3756; Officer Rizza; Commonwealth of Attorney; Mario Torres, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
Lenir RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O.J. FAULK, Officer, Badge #2908; D.N. Custer, Officer, Badge #3756; Officer Rizza; Commonwealth of Attorney; Mario Torres, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1125
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2016
Decided: May 31, 2016
Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Pace Baucom, Assistant County Attorney, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam • opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lenir Richardson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying her motion to remand and denying her motion for recusal. 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 Richardson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. Richardson may seek review of these decisions on appeal from the court's final judgment. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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