Case Name: Stuart Wayne TOMPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joel HERRON; William Hyatt; John Doe Purcell; Jane Doe Bounds; Jane Doe Cooper; Jane Doe Mouzon; Jane Doe Chavis; John Doe Chavis; Jane Doe Harty; Jane Doe Roynolds; Jane Doe Mollay; John Doe Bellomy; Jane Doe Lyle; Jane Doe Thompson; John Doe Ingram; John Doe Samuda; John Doe Frazier; John Doe Girt; John Doe Russ; John Doe Brunson; Jane Doe Monroe; John Doe Bacot; John Doe Danford; John Doe Hunt; John Doe Chavis; John Doe Mcneal; John Doe Jones; John Doe C. Covington; John Doe Lockleor; Kristie B. Stanback; Robert C. Lewis; Alvin William Keller, Jr.; Marietta Barr; John Doe Quick; Pamela J. Locklear; Chandra K. Ranson; Okocha Friday; John Doe; Jane Doe Graham; John Doe Jones; Jane Doe Gerald; Jane Doe K. Afford; Jane Doe C. Bullarl; John Doe, Facility Classification Committee; John Doe, Director Classification Committee; John Doe Alexander; John Doe Dial; Jane Doe Betha, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-23
Citations: 443 F. App'x 879
Docket Number: No. 11-6541
Parties: Stuart Wayne TOMPKINS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joel HERRON; William Hyatt; John Doe Purcell; Jane Doe Bounds; Jane Doe Cooper; Jane Doe Mouzon; Jane Doe Chavis; John Doe Chavis; Jane Doe Harty; Jane Doe Roynolds; Jane Doe Mollay; John Doe Bellomy; Jane Doe Lyle; Jane Doe Thompson; John Doe Ingram; John Doe Samuda; John Doe Frazier; John Doe Girt; John Doe Russ; John Doe Brunson; Jane Doe Monroe; John Doe Bacot; John Doe Danford; John Doe Hunt; John Doe Chavis; John Doe Mcneal; John Doe Jones; John Doe C. Covington; John Doe Lockleor; Kristie B. Stanback; Robert C. Lewis; Alvin William Keller, Jr.; Marietta Barr; John Doe Quick; Pamela J. Locklear; Chandra K. Ranson; Okocha Friday; John Doe; Jane Doe Graham; John Doe Jones; Jane Doe Gerald; Jane Doe K. Afford; Jane Doe C. Bullarl; John Doe, Facility Classification Commit tee; John Doe, Director Classification Committee; John Doe Alexander; John Doe Dial; Jane Doe Betha, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 879–880

Head Matter:
Stuart Wayne TOMPKINS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joel HERRON; William Hyatt; John Doe Purcell; Jane Doe Bounds; Jane Doe Cooper; Jane Doe Mouzon; Jane Doe Chavis; John Doe Chavis; Jane Doe Harty; Jane Doe Roynolds; Jane Doe Mollay; John Doe Bellomy; Jane Doe Lyle; Jane Doe Thompson; John Doe Ingram; John Doe Samuda; John Doe Frazier; John Doe Girt; John Doe Russ; John Doe Brunson; Jane Doe Monroe; John Doe Bacot; John Doe Danford; John Doe Hunt; John Doe Chavis; John Doe Mcneal; John Doe Jones; John Doe C. Covington; John Doe Lockleor; Kristie B. Stanback; Robert C. Lewis; Alvin William Keller, Jr.; Marietta Barr; John Doe Quick; Pamela J. Locklear; Chandra K. Ranson; Okocha Friday; John Doe; Jane Doe Graham; John Doe Jones; Jane Doe Gerald; Jane Doe K. Afford; Jane Doe C. Bullarl; John Doe, Facility Classification Commit tee; John Doe, Director Classification Committee; John Doe Alexander; John Doe Dial; Jane Doe Betha, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-6541.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 23, 2011.
Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stuart Wayne Tompkins seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and striking his first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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 Tompkins 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.