Case Name: Elvis Joseph AMARAME, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden, in his individual capacity; Robert Gates, in his individual capacity; Joseph Owens, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-08
Citations: 325 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 08-8169
Parties: Elvis Joseph AMARAME, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Matthew B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden, in his individual capacity; Robert Gates, in his individual capacity; Joseph Owens, in his individual capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
Elvis Joseph AMARAME, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Matthew B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden, in his individual capacity; Robert Gates, in his individual capacity; Joseph Owens, in his individual capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-8169.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2009.
Decided: May 8, 2009.
Elvis Joseph Amarame, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elvis Joseph Amarame seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Amarame's complaint. 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., 387 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Amarame 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.