Case Name: Victor B. WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FNU TAYLOR; FNU Moss; FNU Sergeant; FNU Smith; FNU Paulk; FNU Childs; FNU Trimmer, Defendants-Appellees, and FNU Smereka; City of Charlotte, North Carolina, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-09
Citations: 369 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 10-1014
Parties: Victor B. WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FNU TAYLOR; FNU Moss; FNU Sergeant; FNU Smith; FNU Paulk; FNU Childs; FNU Trimmer, Defendants-Appellees, and FNU Smereka; City of Charlotte, North Carolina, Defendants.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
Victor B. WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FNU TAYLOR; FNU Moss; FNU Sergeant; FNU Smith; FNU Paulk; FNU Childs; FNU Trimmer, Defendants-Appellees, and FNU Smereka; City of Charlotte, North Carolina, Defendants.
No. 10-1014.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 22, 2010.
Decided: March 9, 2010.
Victor B. White, Appellant Pro Se. David John Adinolfi, II, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Sean Francis Perrin, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor B. White seeks to appeal the district court's text orders dismissing some, but not all defendants, and denying recon sideration in this civil rights action. 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 White 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.