Case Name: Reginald LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dante HEMINGWAY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-27
Citations: 96 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 03-2117
Parties: Reginald LEE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dante HEMINGWAY, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 108–108

Head Matter:
Reginald LEE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dante HEMINGWAY, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 03-2117.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2004.
Decided Jan. 27, 2004.
Reginald Lee, Appellant pro se.
Charles Grant Byrd, Jr., Alston & Byrd, Baltimore, Maryland, Neal Marcellas Janey, Sr., the Janey Law Firm, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Reginald Lee seeks to appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Nathan Stephens, one of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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 Lee 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