Case Name: Reniece L.W. KABANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana James BOENTE, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Steven E. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-13
Citations: 680 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 17-1157
Parties: Reniece L.W. KABANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana James BOENTE, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Steven E. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
Reniece L.W. KABANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana James BOENTE, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Steven E. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1157
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 6, 2017
Decided: March 13, 2017
• Reniece L.W. Kabando, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reniece L.W. Kabando seeks to appeal the district court's January 27, 2017, order denying her self-styled "Amended Motion to Exparte" and amended motion to expedite. 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 Ka-bando 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process,
DISMISSED