Case Name: Leo McCLAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janice THOMAS, RN; Dr. Reddy; Dr. McDonald; Disha Dave, Social Worker; Dr. Jose Chavez; Dr. Crispland Grinn; Mr. James, MHS; Kia Wilson; Carla, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-21
Citations: 585 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 14-7150
Parties: Leo McCLAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janice THOMAS, RN; Dr. Reddy; Dr. McDonald; Disha Dave, Social Worker; Dr. Jose Chavez; Dr. Crispland Grinn; Mr. James, MHS; Kia Wilson; Carla, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
Leo McCLAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janice THOMAS, RN; Dr. Reddy; Dr. McDonald; Disha Dave, Social Worker; Dr. Jose Chavez; Dr. Crispland Grinn; Mr. James, MHS; Kia Wilson; Carla, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7150.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 21, 2014.
Leo McClam, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leo McClam appeals the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint and amended complaints. 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). Because McClam may proceed with his claims by filing another complaint and providing factual allegations specifying how the named defendants violated his constitutional rights, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order with respect to those claims nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). 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.