Case Name: Carl D. GORDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Director Fred SCHILLING, Health Services Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Mark Amonette, Chief Physician of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-03
Citations: 678 F. App'x 167
Docket Number: No. 16-7409
Parties: Carl D. GORDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Director Fred SCHILLING, Health Services Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Mark Amonette, Chief Physician of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
Carl D. GORDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Director Fred SCHILLING, Health Services Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Mark Amonette, Chief Physician of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-7409
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 3, 2017
Decided: March 3, 2017
Carl D. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl D. Gordon seeks to appeal the district court's order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion- for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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 Gordon seeks to appeal is nei ther a final order nor an appealable 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