Case Name: Bart Fitzgerald McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Avery-Mitchell Facility; Officer Fox; Officer Edwards, Defendants-Appellees, and Marty Loudermilk, Detective; Chris Warren, Detective at Alexander County Sheriff's Department, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-15
Citations: 22 F. App'x 140
Docket Number: No. 01-6537
Parties: Bart Fitzgerald McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Avery-Mitchell Facility; Officer Fox; Officer Edwards, Defendants-Appellees, and Marty Loudermilk, Detective; Chris Warren, Detective at Alexander County Sheriff's Department, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 140–141

Head Matter:
Bart Fitzgerald McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Avery-Mitchell Facility; Officer Fox; Officer Edwards, Defendants-Appellees, and Marty Loudermilk, Detective; Chris Warren, Detective at Alexander County Sheriff's Department, Defendants.
No. 01-6537.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2001.
Decided Nov. 15, 2001.
Bart Fitzgerald McClain, pro se. Debor-rah Lynn Newton, Assistant Attorney General, James Philip Allen, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bart Fitzgerald McClain appeals the district court's order denying his motion to compel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.