Case Name: Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Food Service Officer Mr. NELSON; Food Service Mr. Taylor; Food Service Mr. Craze; Food Service Ms. Johnson; Food Service Ms. Venton; Administrative Food Service Brown; Administrative Food Service Argline, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-22
Citations: 568 F. App'x 197
Docket Number: No. 14-6103
Parties: Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Food Service Officer Mr. NELSON; Food Service Mr. Taylor; Food Service Mr. Craze; Food Service Ms. Johnson; Food Service Ms. Venton; Administrative Food Service Brown; Administrative Food Service Argline, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 197–197

Head Matter:
Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Food Service Officer Mr. NELSON; Food Service Mr. Taylor; Food Service Mr. Craze; Food Service Ms. Johnson; Food Service Ms. Venton; Administrative Food Service Brown; Administrative Food Service Argline, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6103.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2014.
Decided: April 22, 2014.
Nathaniel Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Singleton seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss some, but not all, of Singleton's claims asserted under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 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 Singleton 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.