Case Name: David C. CORSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul A. MATTOX, Jr.; Roger Propst, Superintendent of Schools Calhoun County Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-10
Citations: 382 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 10-1246
Parties: David C. CORSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul A. MATTOX, Jr.; Roger Propst, Superintendent of Schools Calhoun County Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
David C. CORSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul A. MATTOX, Jr.; Roger Propst, Superintendent of Schools Calhoun County Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1246.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 1, 2010.
Decided: June 10, 2010.
David C. Corson, Appellant Pro Se. April Joy Wheeler, David Lee Wyant, Bai ley & Wyant, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Jeffery Dale Taylor, Rose Padden & Petty, LC, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David C. Corson filed a civil complaint asserting claims arising under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (2006), who recommended denying relief and notified Corson of his right to file objections to the report and recommendation. Instead, Corson filed a notice of appeal. 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 Corson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable 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.