Case Name: Charles JONES, a/k/a Jeffrey Victor Warner, a/k/a Nicholas Warner Jones, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Ann SAAR, Maryland State Secretary of Public Safety & Correctional Services; John Snowden, Lieutenant; Julius Williams, Sergeant; Dante Green; Donald White; Darryl Taylor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-21
Citations: 100 F. App'x 953
Docket Number: No. 04-6794
Parties: Charles JONES, a/k/a Jeffrey Victor Warner, a/k/a Nicholas Warner Jones, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mary Ann SAAR, Maryland State Secretary of Public Safety & Correctional Services; John Snowden, Lieutenant; Julius Williams, Sergeant; Dante Green; Donald White; Darryl Taylor, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 953–953

Head Matter:
Charles JONES, a/k/a Jeffrey Victor Warner, a/k/a Nicholas Warner Jones, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mary Ann SAAR, Maryland State Secretary of Public Safety & Correctional Services; John Snowden, Lieutenant; Julius Williams, Sergeant; Dante Green; Donald White; Darryl Taylor, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-6794.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 21, 2004.
Charles Jones, Appellant pro se.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished pER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing some but not all defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); 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 order Jones 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