Case Name: Eric Alan SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, of Charlotte, NC; John Hayward; Mike Calzareeta; Doug Ford; Rayvon Irby, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-03
Citations: 683 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 16-2151
Parties: Eric Alan SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, of Charlotte, NC; John Hayward; Mike Calzareeta; Doug Ford; Rayvon Irby, Defendants.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
Eric Alan SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, of Charlotte, NC; John Hayward; Mike Calzareeta; Doug Ford; Rayvon Irby, Defendants.
No. 16-2151
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: April 3, 2017
Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Celeste T. Jones, Richard James Morgan, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in .this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Aan Sanders seeks to appeal the district court's order overruling his objections to the magistrate judge's order compelling him to respond to the Defendant's discovery requests. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); 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 Sanders seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Sanders' motions and 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