Case Name: Charles Everette HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael W. HENDERSON; Peter S. Gilchrist; Teresa Broadway; Andrew Rudgers, Probation Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-06
Citations: 421 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 11-6096
Parties: Charles Everette HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael W. HENDERSON; Peter S. Gilchrist; Teresa Broadway; Andrew Rudgers, Probation Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 297–297

Head Matter:
Charles Everette HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael W. HENDERSON; Peter S. Gilchrist; Teresa Broadway; Andrew Rudgers, Probation Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6096.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2011.
Decided: April 6, 2011.
Charles Everett Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Francis Perrin, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Oliver Gray Wheeler, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Everette Hinton seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint to add an additional defendant. 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Hinton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Hinton's request for counsel and 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.