Case Name: Ben Howard SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph K. COFFY; Bob Atkinson; Linda G. Walters; Percy B. Harvin; L. Keith Josey, Jr.; Ronnie Stewart, all in their individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-03
Citations: 330 F. App'x 31
Docket Number: No. 09-1225
Parties: Ben Howard SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joseph K. COFFY; Bob Atkinson; Linda G. Walters; Percy B. Harvin; L. Keith Josey, Jr.; Ronnie Stewart, all in their individual and official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 330
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
Ben Howard SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joseph K. COFFY; Bob Atkinson; Linda G. Walters; Percy B. Harvin; L. Keith Josey, Jr.; Ronnie Stewart, all in their individual and official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-1225.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2009.
Ben Howard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Shaun C. Kent, Coffey, Chandler & Kent, PA, Manning, South Carolina; Kelly M. Jolley, McNair Law Firm, PA, Hilton Head, South Carolina; Andrew Linde-mann, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ben Howard Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Defendant Percy B. Harvin. 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 order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Appellees' motion to 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.