Case Name: Amar BANSAL; Bina Bansal, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland; Thomas Berry, Officer, Montgomery County Maryland Department of Police, Defendants-Appellees, and Montgomery County Maryland Department of Police; Montgomery County, Maryland Sheriff's Department, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-05
Citations: 583 F. App'x 106
Docket Number: No. 13-2012
Parties: Amar BANSAL; Bina Bansal, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland; Thomas Berry, Officer, Montgomery County Maryland Department of Police, Defendants-Appellees, and Montgomery County Maryland Department of Police; Montgomery County, Maryland Sheriff's Department, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 106–107

Head Matter:
Amar BANSAL; Bina Bansal, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland; Thomas Berry, Officer, Montgomery County Maryland Department of Police, Defendants-Appellees, and Montgomery County Maryland Department of Police; Montgomery County, Maryland Sheriff's Department, Defendants.
No. 13-2012.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 5, 2014.
Billy L. Ponds, The Ponds Law Firm, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Marc P. Hansen, County Attorney, Patricia P. Via, Chief, Division of Litigation, Karen L. Federman Henry, Chief, Division of Finance and Procurement, Patricia Lisehora Kane, Associate County Attorney, Rock-ville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Amar and Bina Bansal seek to appeal the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss the claims against Montgomery County, Maryland, and Officer Thomas Berry in the Bansals' 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) action. 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 the Bansals seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable 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.