Case Name: Patricia Lee GREENWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ivan J. TONEY, Esq.; Kim R. Varner, Esq.; James W. Segura, Esq.; Jane Doe; Jack Dye; Nela Laughridge; A.H. Skardon; T.T. Thompson, Defendants-Appellees, and Law Enforcement Center, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-28
Citations: 172 F. App'x 492
Docket Number: No. 05-2198
Parties: Patricia Lee GREENWAY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Ivan J. TONEY, Esq.; Kim R. Varner, Esq.; James W. Segura, Esq.; Jane Doe; Jack Dye; Nela Laughridge; A.H. Skardon; T.T. Thompson, Defendants—Appellees, and Law Enforcement Center, Defendant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 492–492

Head Matter:
Patricia Lee GREENWAY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Ivan J. TONEY, Esq.; Kim R. Varner, Esq.; James W. Segura, Esq.; Jane Doe; Jack Dye; Nela Laughridge; A.H. Skardon; T.T. Thompson, Defendants—Appellees, and Law Enforcement Center, Defendant.
No. 05-2198.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided: Feb. 28, 2006.
Patricia Lee Greenway, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Winn, Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Lee Greenway seeks to appeal from the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and granting the motions to dismiss filed by four of the seven Defendants named in her amended complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); 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 Greenway seeks to appeal is neither 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.