Case Name: Kenneth NEWKIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis LERNER, Judge, Circuit Court; Anton Bell, District Attorney; George Rogers, Attorney, Stand By; Linda Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court; Charles Haden, Appeal Lawyer; Rodney, Detective, Hampton Police Department; Ashley Kelly, Daily Press Writer; Monae Debra Waters-Owens; Thomas Sherrad Kearney, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-26
Citations: 511 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 12-8007
Parties: Kenneth NEWKIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis LERNER, Judge, Circuit Court; Anton Bell, District Attorney; George Rogers, Attorney, Stand By; Linda Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court; Charles Haden, Appeal Lawyer; Rodney, Detective, Hampton Police Department; Ashley Kelly, Daily Press Writer; Monae Debra Waters-Owens; Thomas Sherrad Kearney, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
Kenneth NEWKIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis LERNER, Judge, Circuit Court; Anton Bell, District Attorney; George Rogers, Attorney, Stand By; Linda Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court; Charles Haden, Appeal Lawyer; Rodney, Detective, Hampton Police Department; Ashley Kelly, Daily Press Writer; Monae Debra Waters-Owens; Thomas Sherrad Kearney, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-8007.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2013.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2013.
Kenneth Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Newkirk seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order granting him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action and denying without prejudice his motion to transfer, motion to amend, and motion for appointment of counsel. 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 Newkirk seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.