Case Name: Charles M. CASSELL, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.A. WILLIAMS; Owens, Dr.; Connor, Officer; Hinsin, Officer; Wade, Officer; Mills, Officer; Monroe, Officer; Gragrinis, Officer; Washington, Sgt.; Sergeant Burgess; Officer Blow; Officer Hardee; Nurse Henry; All Officers & Sgts. on Grey Unit; Captain Maddox, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-16
Citations: 332 F. App'x 866
Docket Number: No. 09-6986
Parties: Charles M. CASSELL, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.A. WILLIAMS; Owens, Dr.; Connor, Officer; Hinsin, Officer; Wade, Officer; Mills, Officer; Monroe, Officer; Gragrinis, Officer; Washington, Sgt.; Sergeant Burgess; Officer Blow; Officer Hardee; Nurse Henry; All Officers & Sgts. on Grey Unit; Captain Maddox, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 866–867

Head Matter:
Charles M. CASSELL, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.A. WILLIAMS; Owens, Dr.; Connor, Officer; Hinsin, Officer; Wade, Officer; Mills, Officer; Monroe, Officer; Gragrinis, Officer; Washington, Sgt.; Sergeant Burgess; Officer Blow; Officer Hardee; Nurse Henry; All Officers & Sgts. on Grey Unit; Captain Maddox, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6986.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 10, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 16, 2009.
Charles M. Cassell, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles M. Cassell, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order providing him twenty days to file an amended complaint in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. 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 Cassell 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.