Case Name: Reginald Underwood FULLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA YADKIN COUNTY; Director Bureau of ATF, ADCE; North Carolina Department of Correction/NCPS; North Carolina General Assembly; Superior Court of Forsyth County; United States Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-28
Citations: 687 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 16-7746
Parties: Reginald Underwood FULLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA YADKIN COUNTY; Director Bureau of ATF, ADCE; North Carolina Department of Correction/NCPS; North Carolina General Assembly; Superior Court of Forsyth County; United States Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 275–275

Head Matter:
Reginald Underwood FULLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA YADKIN COUNTY; Director Bureau of ATF, ADCE; North Carolina Department of Correction/NCPS; North Carolina General Assembly; Superior Court of Forsyth County; United States Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-7746
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2017
Decided: April 28, 2017
Reginald U. Fullard, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Underwood Fullard appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. 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 Fullard seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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