Case Name: Frankie L. McCOY, Sr., Disabled Prisoner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CLARK, Major, 4-12 Shift; D. Taylor, Sergeant, 4-12 Shift; R. Koppel, Major, 8-4 Shift; L. Channey, Captain, 8-4 Shift; Unknown Named Defendants, each defendant is individual and official capacity being sued, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-01
Citations: 32 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 02-6176
Parties: Frankie L. McCOY, Sr., Disabled Prisoner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CLARK, Major, 4-12 Shift; D. Taylor, Sergeant, 4-12 Shift; R. Koppel, Major, 8-4 Shift; L. Channey, Captain, 8-4 Shift; Unknown Named Defendants, each defendant is individual and official capacity being sued, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 77–77

Head Matter:
Frankie L. McCOY, Sr., Disabled Prisoner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CLARK, Major, 4-12 Shift; D. Taylor, Sergeant, 4-12 Shift; R. Koppel, Major, 8-4 Shift; L. Channey, Captain, 8-4 Shift; Unknown Named Defendants, each defendant is individual and official capacity being sued, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6176.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2002.
Decided April 1, 2002.
Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., appeals the district court's order denying his motion seeking to recuse the district court judge. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 here appealed is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.