Case Name: Howard Duffis CLAUDIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED; Warden Jonathan Miner; Wallace Branch; R.W. Hinton; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Harley Lappin, Director, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-22
Citations: 534 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 13-6375
Parties: Howard Duffis CLAUDIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED; Warden Jonathan Miner; Wallace Branch; R.W. Hinton; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Harley Lappin, Director, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
Howard Duffis CLAUDIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED; Warden Jonathan Miner; Wallace Branch; R.W. Hinton; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Harley Lappin, Director, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-6375.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 18, 2013.
Decided: July 22, 2013.
Howard Duffis Claudio, Appellant pro se. Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Robert T. Numbers, II, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Howard Duffis Claudio seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing the Bureau of Prisons and Harley Lappin as parties to his lawsuit. 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the action is proceeding in the district court against the remaining defendants, the order Claudio seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able 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.