Case Name: William Clayton McKINNEDY, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cecil REYNOLDS, Warden at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Robert Ward, a/k/a Bob Ward; Jon E. Ozmint; Mark Sanford; Henry Dargan McMaster; Barton Vincent; Mary Coleman; Sandra Bowie; A. Hardin; A. Sellers; Jerome Armstrong; Robinson; James Wakeley; Beckwith; James Baytes; Robert Huggins, Bob Huggins; Derwin Neisman; Jerry Washington; T.A. Smith; Price; Mr. Seward; Dubose; Clauder; David M. Tatarsky; Robert Jacobs, a/k/a Bob Jacobs; Oscar Faulkenberry; Captain Thomas, Kershaw Correctional Institution; Daniel J. Murphy, Inspector General of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Linda J. Martin, OPNS, Secretary, General Counsel, SCDC's Headquarters; Patterson, SCDC's General Counsel Office, Defendants-Appellees, and Mike Fair; John D. McLeod; Marvin F. Kittrell; John Doe, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-22
Citations: 326 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 08-8499
Parties: William Clayton McKINNEDY, III, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Cecil REYNOLDS, Warden at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Robert Ward, a/k/a Bob Ward; Jon E. Ozmint; Mark Sanford; Henry Dargan McMaster; Barton Vincent; Mary Coleman; Sandra Bowie; A. Hardin; A. Sellers; Jerome Armstrong; Robinson; James Wakeley; Beckwith; James Baytes; Robert Huggins, Bob Huggins; Derwin Neisman; Jerry Washington; T.A. Smith; Price; Mr. Seward; Dubose; Clauder; David M. Tatarsky; Robert Jacobs, a/k/a Bob Jacobs; Oscar Faulkenberry; Captain Thomas, Kershaw Correctional Institution; Daniel J. Murphy, Inspector General of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Linda J. Martin, OPNS, Secretary, General Counsel, SCDC’s Headquarters; Patterson, SCDC’s General Counsel Office, Defendants—Appellees, and Mike Fair; John D. McLeod; Marvin F. Kittrell; John Doe, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
William Clayton McKINNEDY, III, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Cecil REYNOLDS, Warden at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Robert Ward, a/k/a Bob Ward; Jon E. Ozmint; Mark Sanford; Henry Dargan McMaster; Barton Vincent; Mary Coleman; Sandra Bowie; A. Hardin; A. Sellers; Jerome Armstrong; Robinson; James Wakeley; Beckwith; James Baytes; Robert Huggins, Bob Huggins; Derwin Neisman; Jerry Washington; T.A. Smith; Price; Mr. Seward; Dubose; Clauder; David M. Tatarsky; Robert Jacobs, a/k/a Bob Jacobs; Oscar Faulkenberry; Captain Thomas, Kershaw Correctional Institution; Daniel J. Murphy, Inspector General of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Linda J. Martin, OPNS, Secretary, General Counsel, SCDC’s Headquarters; Patterson, SCDC’s General Counsel Office, Defendants—Appellees, and Mike Fair; John D. McLeod; Marvin F. Kittrell; John Doe, Defendants.
No. 08-8499.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2009.
Decided: June 22, 2009.
William Clayton McKinnedy, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Clayton McKinnedy, III, seeks to appeal two orders: (1) the magistrate judge's order denying McKinnedy's motion for reconsideration of an earlier order denying his motion for recusal and (2) the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing without prejudice McKinnedy's claims against some but not all defendants. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders McKinnedy seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.