Case Name: Curtis L. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Warden Cartledge; Major Lewis; Capt. Mursier; Lt. Steven; Lt. Croutch; Sgt. Macky; Sgt. Writ; OFC. Curhley; Dr. McCree; RN Crawford; RN Andrew; RN Black; Male Officer Young; Cynthia Chernecki, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Known and unknown officials in official and individual capacity security medical, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-07
Citations: 474 F. App'x 997
Docket Number: No. 12-6648
Parties: Curtis L. KING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Warden Cartledge; Major Lewis; Capt. Mursier; Lt. Steven; Lt. Croutch; Sgt. Macky; Sgt. Writ; OFC. Curhley; Dr. McCree; RN Crawford; RN Andrew; RN Black; Male Officer Young; Cynthia Chernecki, Defendants—Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Known and unknown officials in official and individual capacity security medical, Defendant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 997–998

Head Matter:
Curtis L. KING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Warden Cartledge; Major Lewis; Capt. Mursier; Lt. Steven; Lt. Croutch; Sgt. Macky; Sgt. Writ; OFC. Curhley; Dr. McCree; RN Crawford; RN Andrew; RN Black; Male Officer Young; Cynthia Chernecki, Defendants—Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Known and unknown officials in official and individual capacity security medical, Defendant.
No. 12-6648.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 9, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 7, 2012.
Curtis L. King, Appellant Pro Se. Brian E. Sopp, Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis L. King seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. 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., 387 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order King 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.